It might be close enough to be considered a chilling effect? It's ultimately up to debate by high-powered lawyers. I don't think ANY 1A issue is ever clear-cut...

It's often the case that if a law were to have the potential to chill speech that would otherwise be expressed or not expressed (and I think this law falls under that category), it's open to questioning at least

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/897/chilling-ef...

I don't know how this will ultimately turn out... maybe California will win, but it's at least unclear enough to be worth a legal debate, I think?