Google, Meta and TikTok have each filed a separate federal lawsuit against California, asking the courts to block a state law that bans personalised feeds and autoplay videos for users under 16. The law, Assembly Bill 1709, was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in September and takes effect on 1 January 2027, carrying fines of up to $50,000 per affected child. The companies argue it violates free speech and federal law, while California’s attorney general says his office will defend what he calls a commonsense measure to protect children online.
What the law bans
AB 1709 targets what California calls “psychologically exploitative features” — the personalised recommendations and autoplay videos that keep young users scrolling. Platforms must switch those features off for under-16s, even with parental consent, and delete the accounts of children who keep them on. Enforcement sits with the attorney general, with fines of up to $50,000 per affected child.
The three companies filed on Wednesday, each naming Attorney General Rob Bonta as the only defendant. Google, which owns YouTube, filed in San Jose; Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, filed in San Francisco; and TikTok, owned by China’s ByteDance, filed in Los Angeles. Each asks its court to block enforcement before the law takes effect.
The companies’ case
Meta argues that California cannot override its editorial judgment about how to curate and display posts, while children remain free to spend unlimited time on platforms offering similar services. The company says the law would make it unlawful to show personalised content to minors, and would force it to delete their accounts unless it changes how its feeds work.
Google says parents, not the state, should decide what their children see online. “Parents are best positioned to make the right decisions for their families,” spokesperson Jose Castaneda said, adding that broad laws break the systems Google built to help children find age-appropriate videos. Autoplay on YouTube is off for minors by default, and parents can switch off Shorts entirely.
TikTok calls the law “a blatantly unconstitutional restriction on free expression” that erodes the practice of curating content based on user preferences, which bookstores, television networks and streaming services all use. The company argues protected speech cannot be suppressed solely to shield young people from ideas a legislature considers unsuitable.
Our Read
Three rivals suing in unison is rare, and it tells you how the industry reads this law. AB 1709 does not just fine bad behaviour after the fact; it reaches into the recommendation engine itself, the system at the heart of these businesses. If California’s version survives, other states will copy it, and the template will spread far beyond Sacramento.
The companies’ legal odds look reasonable. Courts have been sceptical of state laws that dictate how platforms present content, and France’s top court struck down a similar law on free-expression grounds. California’s earlier SB 976 law on personalised feeds for under-18s faced the same challenge, and the Ninth Circuit declined to block its core addictive-feed provision.
The counter-argument is real, too. The Electronic Frontier Foundation calls the law a privacy and free-speech nightmare, warning it forces platforms to collect more data to verify ages. The context also cuts against the companies: Meta agreed in August to pay up to $18 billion to settle child-safety claims from 29 states, and thousands of addiction lawsuits are still pending.
Why It Matters
The deadline makes this urgent. AB 1709 takes effect on 1 January 2027, so the three courts must rule on injunctions, and their decisions will set the template for states weighing similar laws. A win for the platforms would stall the toughest US child-safety rules; a win for California would force the biggest feeds to rebuild how they serve teenagers.
Background
Newsom signed AB 1709 on 10 September as part of a wider package of California child-safety measures, and it follows Australia’s outright ban on social media for under-16s, which took effect in December 2025. No court has yet ruled on whether to pause the law.
Source: Reuters’ report and TechCrunch’s report
0 Comments