Google, Meta Platforms and TikTok Sue California Over Under-16 Law

By Amara Osei

Three internet platforms sued California on Wednesday to block enforcement of Assembly Bill 1709, a state law restricting features that could lead children under 16 to compulsive use.

Google, Meta Platforms and TikTok filed separate cases in federal courts in San Jose, San Francisco and Los Angeles, respectively. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who enforces the state’s laws, is the only defendant; his office did not immediately respond on Thursday to requests for comment.

What does Assembly Bill 1709 prohibit?

The law bars platforms from offering children under 16 what California calls “psychologically exploitative features” when those features could lead to compulsive use.

The statute names personal recommendations and autoplay video as examples:

• Personal recommendations for children under 16.
• Videos delivered through autoplay features.

It also requires platforms to delete children’s accounts with those features.

All three companies say AB 1709 wrongly compels them to honor California’s preferred means of presenting content to children. Their complaints also argue that the law substitutes the state’s judgment for that of parents. The cases therefore turn on whether California can bar specific design choices without dictating editorial judgment.

The companies say those mandates violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution and Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act. Section 230 broadly shields online platforms from liability over user content.

“The state cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, override Meta’s editorial judgments about how to curate and display … billions of posts of third-party speech,” Meta, the Facebook and Instagram parent, said in its complaint. Google, which owns YouTube and is a unit of Alphabet, and TikTok, a unit of China’s ByteDance, made similar arguments.

Governor Gavin Newsom signed the law on September 10. He said children’s safety should be central to any discussion about technology and that California “will not stand by while unregulated technology puts our children at risk.”

Opponents beyond the companies have also challenged the law. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit digital rights advocacy group, called it “a massive privacy and free speech nightmare.” Some critics accused California of overreaching by restricting children’s online access.

How does California compare with other jurisdictions?

Many U.S. states regulate children’s access to social media. Countries around the world have adopted similar restrictions, including Australia’s ban on social media for children under 16.

How large is the existing litigation?

In August, Meta agreed to pay up to $18 billion and limit teenagers’ use of Facebook and Instagram under agreements with nearly all U.S. states. Those states had accused Meta of violating privacy and consumer-protection laws.

Google, Meta Platforms, TikTok and Snap (SNAP.N), the Snapchat parent, still face thousands of lawsuits. The plaintiffs include:

• Individuals.
• School districts.
• Municipalities.
• Other government entities.

They allege the platforms sought to addict children and caused a mental health crisis. The claimed outcomes include anxiety, depression and suicide.

What could the cases decide?

The three cases will test whether California can restrict features it labels psychologically exploitative for children under 16. The courts must weigh those rules against the First Amendment and Section 230 claims raised by Google, Meta Platforms and TikTok.

A ruling for the companies would stop California from enforcing the law as written. A ruling for Bonta would preserve the state’s deletion mandate and limits on personalized recommendations and autoplay video for children under 16.

The rulings will determine whether California can regulate under-16 users through platform design without displacing the First Amendment and Section 230 protections the companies invoke. The result will carry weight for other states already regulating children’s social-media access.