Meta, Google and TikTok Sue California to Block Teen Social Media Law

Three of the world's largest tech companies — Meta, Google and TikTok — have sued California Attorney General Rob Bonta to block a law that could cost them up to $50,000 per affected user under 16. The law, AB 1709, was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in September and is scheduled to take effect at the start of the new year.

The statute prohibits social platforms from offering autoplay videos and personalized feeds to users under 16. It goes further: platforms must delete those users' accounts if the features are not turned off. Non-compliance carries civil exposure of up to $50,000 for every affected minor — a figure that, multiplied across California's teen user base, could reach into the billions.

Why do the platforms say the law is unconstitutional?

Meta argues AB 1709 violates the First Amendment by overriding its editorial decisions about how to display content. The company also claims Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act preempts the state law. TikTok and Google filed suits making substantially the same arguments.

"Meta currently organizes its feeds of content to include personalized content recommendations and to automatically play media, [so] the Act would make it unlawful for Meta to disseminate speech to minors altogether, and would require Meta to delete minors' accounts, unless it changes these practices," Meta wrote in its lawsuit.

A TikTok spokesperson went further in an emailed statement: "AB 1709 is a blatantly unconstitutional restriction on free expression that erodes the long-standing and protected practice of curating content based on user preferences, which book stores, TV networks and streaming services all use."

The platforms also argue the law sidelines parents. They contend it would override families' own decisions about teens' internet use through existing parental controls.

A Google spokesperson said autoplay on YouTube is already turned off for minors by default, and that parents can shut off their teens' access to Shorts entirely. "We believe parents are best positioned to make the right decisions for their families, which is why we offer a range of protections and tools that put parents in control," the spokesperson said. "Overly broad laws like this actually break the systems we've built to help kids find high-quality, age-appropriate videos."

The takeaway: the industry's defense rests on two pillars — constitutional speech claims and the argument that parental tools, not state mandates, should govern teen use.

What do digital rights groups say?

The lawsuits put groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation in an awkward position: critical of the platforms, yet opposed to the law. Digital safety experts often caution that teen social media laws can compromise the privacy of all users, including adults, because enforcing age limits requires verification checks that collect more data.

"AB 1709 compels platforms to collect even more information from every user, invading everyone's privacy and frustrating our ability to remain anonymous online," EFF Associate Director of State Affairs Rindala Alajaji said in a press briefing. "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."

Alajaji also argued that teenage social media use has enabled significant digital activism, citing the Parkland shooting survivors' March for Our Lives and climate activist Greta Thunberg's global reach. "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 said.

The EFF's position is notable precisely because it is not pro-platform: the group objects to the mechanism, not the goal.

How does this fit the global picture?

AB 1709 is part of a wave of legislation worldwide aimed at curbing teen social media use to improve mental health outcomes. In December 2025, Australia became the first country to ban social media outright for users under 16. France passed a similar law, but its top court struck it down on free expression grounds — a precedent the California plaintiffs will likely cite.

The companies are also fighting on other fronts. Meta in particular agreed to pay a settlement of up to $18 billion to resolve children's safety claims brought by 29 U.S. states.

A representative for Attorney General Bonta said his office is reviewing the filings and remains committed to "defending California's commonsense laws to protect kids online."

With the law set to take effect January 1, the courts will now decide whether California's approach survives — or joins France's on the scrapheap.