Meta, Google, and TikTok have each filed lawsuits against California Attorney General Rob Bonta in an attempt to block a law that restricts social media features it deems addictive for users under 16.
California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the bill, known as AB 1709, into law in September, and it’s slated to take effect at the start of the new year.
The law prohibits social platforms from offering autoplay videos and personalized feeds to users under 16, and it requires the platforms to delete these users’ accounts if they don’t turn those features off. If platforms do not comply, they could be liable for fines of up to $50,000 per affected user under 16 years old.
Meta claims that AB 1709 violates the First Amendment by overriding its editorial decisions about how to display content, adding that Section 230 preempts the law. TikTok and Google made similar arguments.
“Meta currently organizes its feeds of content to include personalized content recommendations and to automatically play media, [so] the Act would make it unlawful for Meta to disseminate speech to minors altogether, and would require Meta to delete minors’ accounts, unless it changes these practices,” the company wrote in its lawsuit.
In an emailed statement, a TikTok spokesperson added, “AB 1709 is a blatantly unconstitutional restriction on free expression that erodes the long-standing and protected practice of curating content based on user preferences, which book stores, TV networks and streaming services all use.”
AB 1709 follows a trend of legislation around the world that seeks to curb teen social media use in an attempt to improve teen mental health outcomes. However, digital safety experts often caution against these laws because they can inadvertently compromise the privacy of all platform users, including adults, by requiring age verification checks that collect more user data.
“AB 1709 compels platforms to collect even more information from every user, invading everyone’s privacy and frustrating our ability to remain anonymous online,” EFF Associate Director of State Affairs Rindala Alajaji said in a press briefing. “Online surveillance by social media companies is harmful, and yet this bill requires even more of it, further concentrating power in the hands of tech companies rather than actually protecting users.”
Alajaji added that teenagers’ use of social media has been instrumental in enabling impactful digital activism, citing the Parkland shooting survivors’ March for Our Lives and climate activist Greta Thunberg’s global reach.
“As a functional ban on social media for youth under 16, AB 1709 cuts young people off from essential information and experiences, silencing the very voices it claims to protect,” Alajaji said.
These platforms are primed to fight this California law as they navigate similar legal battles in various countries. That’s especially true for Meta, which agreed to pay a settlement of up to $18 billion to resolve children’s safety claims brought by 29 U.S. states.
In December 2025, Australia became the first country to ban social media for users under 16 altogether. France passed a similar law, but its top court struck it down, citing concerns about violations of free expression rights.
These platforms also argue that the law would affect parents’ ability to make decisions about their teens’ internet use through parental controls.
A Google spokesperson noted that autoplay on YouTube is turned off for minors by default, and that parents have the ability to turn off their teens’ access to Shorts altogether.
“We believe parents are best positioned to make the right decisions for their families, which is why we offer a range of protections and tools that put parents in control,” a Google spokesperson said. “Overly broad laws like this actually break the systems we’ve built to help kids find high-quality, age-appropriate videos.”
A representative for Attorney General Bonta said that his office is reviewing the filings and is committed to “defending California’s commonsense laws to protect kids online.”
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.