Google, Meta and TikTok filed separate lawsuits Wednesday to block a new California law aimed at protecting children under 16 from addictive social media features, arguing the measure violates the First Amendment and federal liability protections. The state attorney general’s office said it is reviewing the lawsuits.
The law, Assembly Bill 1709, prohibits platforms from offering underage children “psychologically exploitative features” that could lead to compulsive use, such as personalized recommendations and autoplay videos. It also requires the deletion of children’s accounts that use such features. Governor Gavin Newsom signed the law on 10 September, saying California “will not stand by while unregulated technology puts our children at risk.” The law is scheduled to take effect on 1 January 2027, unless a judge blocks it.
Google, Meta and TikTok each filed their lawsuits in different federal courts in California. The companies said the law wrongly compels them to honor California’s preferred means of presenting content to children and substitutes the state’s judgment for that of parents. They also said it violates Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which broadly shields online platforms from liability over user content.
“Parents are best positioned to make the right decisions for their families,” Jose Castaneda, a Google spokesperson, said. “Overly broad laws like this actually break the systems we’ve built to help kids find high-quality, age-appropriate videos.”
Meta said in its lawsuit that California cannot override its editorial judgments about how to curate and display billions of posts, while leaving children free to spend unlimited time on other online platforms that offer similar services. TikTok said protected speech “cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable.”
The office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the only defendant, added: “Our office is committed to defending California’s commonsense laws to protect kids online.”
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group, called the law “a massive privacy and free speech nightmare.”
The lawsuits come as many US states regulate children’s access to social media, and countries including Australia have similar restrictions, including a ban on social media for children under 16. In August, Meta agreed to pay up to $18bn and limit teenagers’ use of Facebook and Instagram under agreements with nearly all US states, which accused it of violating privacy and consumer protection laws.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The law could set a precedent for how states regulate social media features for minors, potentially influencing similar laws nationwide.
- The First Amendment clash between state regulation and platform curation could reach the Supreme Court, with implications for free speech online.
- The outcome affects millions of under-16 users in California, the largest US state by population.
Background
California’s Assembly Bill 1709, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in September 2025, prohibits social media platforms from offering “psychologically exploitative features” to users under 16, including personalized recommendations and autoplay. It also requires platforms to delete accounts with such features. The law is set to take effect on 1 January 2027. Many US states have passed similar restrictions in recent years, and Australia implemented a blanket ban on social media for children under 16.
Key Perspectives
- Google (Jose Castaneda, spokesperson): “Parents are best positioned to make the right decisions for their families. Overly broad laws like this actually break the systems we’ve built to help kids find high-quality, age-appropriate videos.”
- Meta (from its lawsuit): The company argues California cannot override its editorial judgments about how to curate and display billions of posts while leaving children free to spend time on other platforms offering similar services.
- TikTok (from its lawsuit): The company said protected speech “cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable.”
- California Attorney General’s office: “Our office is committed to defending California’s commonsense laws to protect kids online.”
- Electronic Frontier Foundation: Called the law “a massive privacy and free speech nightmare.”
What to Watch
- A ruling on the companies’ request for a preliminary injunction, which could delay or halt enforcement before the law takes effect.
- The January 1, 2027 effective date, which acts as a deadline for court action.
- Potential appeals to the Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court if a lower court rules on the constitutional questions.
Checked
12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 11 supported.
Show each claim
- SupportedGoogle, Meta and TikTok sued California over a law intended to limit children under 16’s risk of addiction to social media.World news | The Guardian: “Google, Meta and TikTok sued California to block enforcement of a new state law intended to limit the risk of addicting children under 16 to social media platforms.”
- SupportedThe state said it is committed to defending California’s “commonsense laws” to protect children online.World news | The Guardian: ““Our office is committed to defending California’s commonsense laws to protect kids online,” it added.”
- SupportedGoogle, Meta and TikTok filed separate lawsuits on Wednesday.World news | The Guardian: “In separate lawsuits on Wednesday, Google, Meta and TikTok said the law wrongly compels them to honor California’s preferred means of presenting content to children”
- SupportedThe companies argue that the law violates the First Amendment and Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act.World news | The Guardian: “They said the law violates the US constitution’s first amendment free speech protections, as well as Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act”
- SupportedThe California attorney general’s office said it is reviewing the lawsuits.World news | The Guardian: “The office of Rob Bonta, the California attorney general, who enforces the state’s laws and is the only defendant, said on Thursday it is reviewing the lawsuits.”
- SupportedAssembly Bill 1709 prohibits platforms from offering underage children features that could lead to compulsive use, including personalized recommendations and autoplay videos, and requires deletion of children’s accounts with those features.World news | The Guardian: “The law, known as Assembly Bill 1709, prohibits such platforms from offering underage children “psychologically exploitative features” that could lead to compulsive use, such as providing personal recommendations and sending videos through autoplay features. It also requires the deletion of children’s accounts with those features.”
- SupportedGavin Newsom signed the law on 10 September.World news | The Guardian: “Governor Gavin Newsom signed the law on 10 September”
- SupportedNewsom said California “will not stand by while unregulated technology puts our children at risk.”World news | The Guardian: “California “will not stand by while unregulated technology puts our children at risk”.”
- SupportedThe law is scheduled to take effect on 1 January 2027 unless a judge blocks it.World news | The Guardian: “The law takes effect on 1 January 2027, unless a judge voids it or puts it on hold.”
- SupportedGoogle spokesperson Jose Castaneda said, “Parents are best positioned to make the right decisions for their families,” and, “Overly broad laws like this actually break the systems we’ve built to help kids find high-quality, age-appropriate videos.”World news | The Guardian: ““Parents are best positioned to make the right decisions for their families,” Jose Castaneda, a Google spokesperson, said on Thursday. “Overly broad laws like this actually break the systems we’ve built to help kids find high-quality, age-appropriate videos.””
- SupportedTikTok said protected speech “cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable.”World news | The Guardian: “TikTok, meanwhile, said protected speech “cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable”.”
- Partly supportedGoogle, Meta and TikTok each filed their lawsuits in different federal courts in California.World news | The Guardian: “Google filed its lawsuit in federal court in San Jose, California. Meta sued in San Francisco, and TikTok sued in Los Angeles.”