The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Friday partially upheld a lower court’s decision to block key provisions of California’s landmark child online safety law, the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (CAADCA).

The appellate court on Friday held that California’s law, which mandates tech companies assess potential harm to children before releasing their products, likely violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution “because it clearly compels speech” by forcing companies to express opinions on harmful content. The court further found that NetChoice’s challenge to the law is likely to succeed.

The court, however, vacated the trial court’s injunction on privacy-focused provisions that mandate companies estimate the age of child users and provide them with a “high level of privacy” by default. Judge Milan D Smith, Jr., who wrote the opinion, noted that it was too early to determine whether the law’s other provisions, unrelated to the impact assessments, could be separated from the rest. Judge Smith also stated that the trial court had not adequately evaluated whether the law could stand without the unconstitutional parts, and the appellate court thus sent that issue back to the lower court for further review.

Following Friday’s decision, California Attorney General Rob Bonta expressed satisfaction with the court’s ruling, highlighting that it overturned what he referred to as “the majority of the district court’s injunction.” In the same press release, California Governor Gavin Newsom echoed this sentiment and urged NetChoice to “abandon this reckless lawsuit” and instead support measures that safeguard children’s safety and privacy.

Chris Marchese, the head of NetChoice’s litigation center, hailed the ruling as “a victory for free expression, online security, and California families.”

The ruling follows a federal district court judge’s decision last year to grant NetChoice a preliminary injunction. NetChoice argued that the CAADCA was unconstitutional, claiming it violated the First Amendment, infringed on the Dormant Commerce Clause by regulating activity beyond California’s borders and disregarded the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).