Google, Meta and TikTok Sue To Block California Law Restricting Addictive Social Media Features for Kids

Google, Meta and TikTok have filed separate lawsuits to stop a California law that would restrict so‑called 'addictive' social media features for users under 16, ahead of its planned start date of 1 January 2027. The complaints, lodged on Wednesday, 4 November, name California Attorney General Rob Bonta as the defendant.

Google sued in San Jose, Meta in San Francisco and TikTok in Los Angeles. Assembly Bill 1709, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on 10 September, will come into force in 2027 unless a court blocks it.

The law bars covered platforms from providing an 'addictive feature' to users under 16. These include an 'addictive feed', autoplay and other features the attorney general may specify by regulation.

An addictive feed is defined as one that recommends, selects or prioritises user‑generated content using information associated with a user or their device.

Platforms must take reasonable measures to ensure under‑16s are not given restricted features and verify users' ages before providing them. Under‑16s may keep accounts if platforms withhold addictive features.

Billions at Stake After Meta Youth Harm Settlement

In August, Meta reached a multistate settlement over claims that its platforms harmed young users. New York Attorney General Letitia James said Meta could pay up to $17.1 billion (€15.2 billion and £12.7 billion) to states.

Meta described the total as approximately $18 billion (€16.0 billion and £13.4 billion), with part conditional on YouTube and TikTok adopting specified measures and making matching payments.

The settlement requires changes to Facebook and Instagram, including a default two‑hour daily limit for users under 18, nighttime restrictions and limits on school‑hour notifications.

Teens can choose a non‑algorithmic feed, and parents can make it the default. Meta urged YouTube and TikTok to adopt the measures; neither joined.

Why the Companies Are Challenging the Law

The companies argue that AB 1709 violates the First Amendment's free‑speech protections and Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which generally shields platforms from liability for user‑posted content.

They say the law interferes with decisions about how content is selected and displayed, and overrides parents' choices. These are allegations, not court findings.

Google says personalised recommendations help young viewers find age‑appropriate videos. YouTube says autoplay is off by default for users under 18 and parents can disable it for children under 13.

Meta says its services allow people to share ideas, find support and discuss important issues. It argues that restricting personalised feeds and autoplay would limit its ability to distribute content to minors.

Lennon Torres, director of movement partnerships at the Heat Initiative, said the companies were presenting a child‑safety measure as a free‑speech dispute. 'They're framing this as a free speech fight, but what's really at stake is a business model that profits from keeping kids scrolling, even when it puts them at risk,' Torres said.

California Vows To Defend Law in Test Case

Bonta's office said it was reviewing the lawsuits and would defend the law. 'Our office is committed to defending California's commonsense laws to protect kids online,' it said.

The cases will test whether California can regulate design features it considers likely to encourage compulsive use without violating constitutional protections. The companies say the law dictates how they present lawful content; the state says it aims to protect minors. As of 6 November, no court had ruled on the challenges.