Big Tech Giants Challenge California AG with Lawsuit Against Teen Social Media Legislation
Meta, Google, and TikTok have initiated legal action against California Attorney General Rob Bonta to contest a new law aimed at limiting social media features that could be considered addictive for users under the age of 16.
Signed into law by California Governor Gavin Newsom in September, the legislation known as AB 1709 is expected to be implemented at the beginning of the upcoming year.
This law prohibits social media platforms from providing autoplay videos and personalized feeds for users under 16 years old. Furthermore, it mandates that platforms delete accounts of minors who do not disable these features. Non-compliance could lead to fines up to $50,000 per affected underage user.
Meta argues that AB 1709 infringes on the First Amendment by interfering with its editorial choices regarding content presentation, claiming that Section 230 takes precedence over this law. TikTok and Google have voiced similar concerns.
“Meta currently curates its content feeds to include tailored recommendations and automatically play media, and as a result, the Act would render it illegal for Meta to share content with minors unless it alters its approach,” the company stated in its legal submission.
In a statement, a spokesperson for TikTok asserted, “AB 1709 is an unmistakably unconstitutional limitation on free speech that undermines the important practice of curating content based on user preferences, a method employed by bookstores, television networks, and streaming platforms alike.”
AB 1709 reflects a growing movement globally aimed at regulating teen engagement with social media to promote better mental health outcomes. Nevertheless, digital safety advocates often warn that such regulations may inadvertently jeopardize the privacy of all users, including adults, by enforcing age verification processes that accumulate additional personal data.
“AB 1709 necessitates platforms to gather even more data from all users, invading privacy and hindering our anonymity online,” stated Rindala Alajaji, Associate Director of State Affairs at the EFF, in a press briefing. “This kind of online surveillance is detrimental, and yet the bill requires an increase in such practices, consolidating power more in the hands of tech companies rather than genuinely safeguarding users.”
Alajaji highlighted that teenagers’ engagement on social media has played a vital role in significant digital activism, referencing initiatives like the March for Our Lives led by Parkland shooting survivors and Greta Thunberg’s impactful climate advocacy.
“AB 1709 effectively acts as a ban on social media for individuals under 16, isolating youth from crucial information and experiences, and stifling the very voices it aims to protect,” Alajaji emphasized.
These platforms are set to challenge this California law while grappling with similar legal issues in other countries. This is particularly relevant for Meta, which recently agreed to a settlement potentially reaching $18 billion concerning children’s safety claims made by 29 U.S. states.
In December 2025, Australia became the first nation to impose a total ban on social media for users under 16, while France enacted a similar law that was later invalidated by its top court over free expression concerns.
The companies contend that this legislation undermines parents’ ability to make informed decisions regarding their children’s internet usage via parental controls.
A Google representative pointed out that autoplay on YouTube is disabled by default for minors, and parents have the option to completely restrict access to Shorts for their children.
“We trust that parents are in the best position to make decisions for their families, which is why we provide an array of tools and protections to empower them,” said a Google spokesperson. “Overreaching laws such as this disrupt the systems we have designed to help children access quality, age-appropriate video content.”
A spokesperson for Attorney General Bonta asserted that his office is reviewing the lawsuits and remains dedicated to “upholding California’s reasonable laws to protect children online.”
