Meta, Google and TikTok have filed separate federal lawsuits against California Attorney General Rob Bonta to block a new California social media law that bans algorithmic feeds and autoplay videos for users under 16. The three technology companies argue Assembly Bill 1709 violates their constitutional free speech rights ahead of its January 2027 enforcement deadline.
Key points
- Assembly Bill 1709 bans autoplay videos and personalised recommendation feeds for users under 16 from 1 January 2027.
- Platforms face civil fines of up to $50,000 for each affected minor unless they turn off restricted features or delete accounts.
- Tech companies argue the legislation breaches First Amendment editorial protections and conflicts with federal Section 230 immunity.
- Civil liberties advocates warn enforcing the rules will force platforms to gather sensitive identity data from all users.
What Assembly Bill 1709 bans
California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1709 into law in September 2026, setting a compliance deadline of 1 January 2027. The statute bars social media platforms from providing features deemed addictive to users under 16 years old, specifically targeting infinite scroll mechanisms, automated video playback, and algorithmic recommendation feeds.
State lawmakers defined these mechanisms as psychologically exploitative designs intended to maximise engagement through compulsive use. To comply, companies must implement reasonable measures to ensure minors do not receive these features or delete their accounts entirely. Platforms that violate the rules face civil penalties of up to $50,000 for each affected child.
How tech companies are challenging the law
The three technology companies filed individual lawsuits in federal court against California Attorney General Rob Bonta. Each company argues that AB 1709 breaches the First Amendment by overriding their editorial discretion over how to display, organise, and recommend content to audiences.
In its complaint, Meta argued that the rules restrict its capacity to present material. The company said the prohibitions would “make it unlawful for Meta to disseminate speech to minors altogether” unless it redesigns its core platforms or deletes teenage accounts.
Google defended YouTube’s recommendation systems along similar lines. In its legal filing, Google claimed in its lawsuit that automated recommendations help provide educational videos sequentially and match content to a child’s developmental stage. A company spokesperson said autoplay is already turned off by default for minors and that parents can block YouTube Shorts.
TikTok described the legislation as an unconstitutional infringement on ordinary media distribution. The company said that curating content based on personal preferences is standard practice across digital publishing, television channels, and streaming platforms.
The companies also claim that federal law preempts the state measure. They argue Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects online services from liability over content distribution. While critics of Section 230 contend the provision grants overly broad immunity, the companies maintain states cannot override federal law to regulate platform architecture.
Privacy concerns and youth activism
Digital rights groups have also criticised the measure, warning that enforcement will compromise personal data protection. The Electronic Frontier Foundation said verifying the age of every user requires platforms to gather sensitive identity information from children and adults alike.
Rindala Alajaji, Associate Director of State Affairs at the foundation, told the Los Angeles Times that mandatory age verification expands corporate surveillance and undermines online anonymity. Alajaji said the restrictions could also lock teenagers out of political participation, pointing to digital movements such as Greta Thunberg’s climate campaign and March for Our Lives.
Child safety campaigners reject the platforms’ free speech argument. Lennon Torres, director of movement partnerships at advocacy group Heat Initiative, worked with the author of the bill on First Amendment questions. Torres said the lawsuits defend “a business model that profits from keeping kids scrolling, even when it puts them at risk”.
The California Attorney General’s office said it is reviewing the complaints. In a statement, Bonta’s office said it remains committed to defending state laws that protect young people on the internet.
The widening fight over platform regulation
The litigation comes as governments worldwide move to restrict how teenagers use social platforms. Australia introduced a national ban on social media accounts for children under 16 in December 2025. French legislators approved similar restrictions, but the country’s highest court struck the measure down in August 2026 over free expression concerns.
Meta is simultaneously handling separate state regulatory enforcement in the United States. In August 2026, the company agreed to pay between $17 billion and $18 billion to resolve child safety and addiction claims brought by 29 attorneys general, without admitting liability. That settlement required Meta to cap teenagers’ daily time on Instagram and Facebook at two hours, block access overnight and during school hours, and offer non-algorithmic feeds.
Following that settlement, Meta issued a “call to action” to YouTube and TikTok to adopt matching restrictions as a new industry baseline. Neither Google nor TikTok agreed to those terms, and all three companies are now fighting California’s legal mandate in court.
