a 14-year-old boy holds an iPhone screen displaying various social media and messaging apps

Meta, Google, and TikTok Sue to Block California Law Restricting Social Media for Teens

by

Tech Giants Sue to Block California’s Social Media Law for Teens

Meta, Google, and TikTok have each filed lawsuits in federal court to block a new California law that would restrict social media features deemed “addictive” for users under 16. The coordinated legal challenge, reported by TechCrunch, targets AB 1709, a bill signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in September and set to take effect on January 1, 2027. The law prohibits platforms from offering autoplay videos and personalized feeds to minors and requires the deletion of their accounts if those features aren’t disabled. Non-compliance could cost companies up to $50,000 for each affected user under 16.

A Clash Over Free Speech and Parental Rights

The tech giants argue AB 1709 violates the First Amendment by overriding their editorial decisions about content. Meta’s lawsuit claims the law would make it unlawful for the company to disseminate speech to minors altogether, forcing it to delete their accounts unless it changes its practices. The company also asserts that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act preempts the state law. TikTok and Google echoed these arguments, with TikTok calling the law a “blatantly unconstitutional restriction on free expression” that erodes the protected practice of curating content based on user preferences. “Book stores, TV networks and streaming services all use” such methods, a TikTok spokesperson noted in an emailed statement.

Google, Meta and TikTok Sue California Over New Social Media Rules for Children

Google’s legal team contended that the law would ban features like YouTube’s recommendation system and autoplay, which it says operate “the way television always has—when one program ends, the next begins.” The company argued the law infringes on both YouTube’s First Amendment rights to organize content and its under-16 users’ rights to access compilations suited to their interests. “Those provisions burden YouTube’s First Amendment right to organize and display the third-party content on its platform in a curated compilation,” Google wrote in its filing.

The tech platforms also emphasize parental control. A Google spokesperson pointed out that autoplay on YouTube is already off for minors by default and that parents can disable their teens’ access to Shorts entirely. “We believe parents are best positioned to make the right decisions for their families,” the spokesperson said, arguing that overly broad laws “break the systems we’ve built to help kids find high-quality, age-appropriate videos.”

The Law’s Intent and Unintended Consequences

AB 1709 represents California's latest effort to address the link between teen social media use and mental health, a trend mirrored in legislation worldwide. However, digital safety experts caution that such laws can compromise privacy for all users by requiring extensive age verification checks.

“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.” Rindala Alajaji, EFF Associate Director of State Affairs

Alajaji also warned that the law could stifle digital activism by teenagers, citing movements like the Parkland survivors’ March for Our Lives and Greta Thunberg’s climate advocacy. “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,” she added.

The capitol building in Sacramento, CA
Photo: deadline.com

A Global Battle and a Hefty Price Tag

This California fight is part of a broader legal war for Meta, which agreed in 2025 to pay up to $18 billion to resolve children’s safety claims from 29 U.S. states. In December 2025, Australia became the first country to ban social media for users under 16, while France passed a similar law that its top court later struck down over free speech concerns.

The lawsuits come at a time when juries have increasingly held platforms accountable for their impact on minors. Earlier this year, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and YouTube liable for a plaintiff’s social media addiction during childhood. In a separate New Mexico case, a jury determined Meta violated consumer protection laws and was negligent in protecting minors from predators, awarding $375 million in penalties.

Google, Meta and TikTok sue California over kids' social media law

Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal, the Democrat from Long Beach who introduced AB 1709, dismissed the lawsuits as “straight out of Meta’s playbook.” “Let’s take stock of where we are: our courts have found platforms liable for addicting kids, our Legislature acts unanimously to implement sensible guardrails to fix it, and Meta would rather sue the state than lean into what California families overwhelmingly want,” he said in a statement. “It’s just a continuation of Meta’s fight to addict children for profit.”

A spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta remained defiant, stating that his office is “committed to defending California’s commonsense laws to protect kids online.” The legal battle is now set in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, where the companies seek a court order to block the law’s implementation before it takes effect in the new year.

More on Meta

Google, Meta and TikTok challenge California law limiting social media features for kids
Tech giants sue to block California's social media law for kids

Worth a look

Read next