Google, Meta and TikTok Sue California Over Under-16 Social Media Law
Google, Meta and TikTok have each filed a separate federal lawsuit against California’s attorney general, seeking to block a state law that restricts social media features the state describes as addictive for users under 16.
The three cases, filed on Wednesday, 4 November, challenge Assembly Bill 1709, known as AB 1709, which is due to take effect on 1 January 2027. All three name Attorney General Rob Bonta as the defendant and ask the courts to stop him from enforcing the law before that date.
TechCrunch reported that Meta filed its case in San Francisco, Google filed in San Jose and TikTok filed in Los Angeles, spreading the challenge across three federal districts in California.
What AB 1709 does
Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1709 on 10 September 2026. The bill was sponsored by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal and formed part of a broader package of online child-safety legislation.
The law bars covered platforms from offering what it calls “addictive features” to users under 16. Those features include personalised feeds, which select or prioritise content using information about the individual user, and autoplay, which starts the next video without the user choosing it.
The ban applies even with parental consent. A platform that knowingly breaches the rules can face civil penalties of up to $50,000 per affected minor, or up to $25,000 per affected minor for a negligent breach. Only the attorney general or a local public prosecutor can bring an enforcement action.
The law is not a blanket ban on under-16 accounts. A platform may keep an account open for a younger user provided it switches off the restricted features for that account.
The companies’ case
All three companies argue that AB 1709 violates the First Amendment by interfering with their editorial decisions about how they select, organise and display content. They also argue that the law is pre-empted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the federal provision that shields online platforms from certain liability for third-party content.
Meta argues that the law lets California interfere with its editorial decisions on Facebook, Instagram and Threads, including how it recommends and displays user-generated content. The company contends that, because its feeds are built around personalised recommendations and automatic playback, the Act would in practice make it unlawful for Meta to disseminate speech to minors altogether.
Google, which owns YouTube, argues that the law takes decision-making power away from parents and interferes with YouTube’s ability to recommend content appropriate for younger users. TikTok argues that the law threatens its For You feed, which uses algorithms to select and arrange videos for individual users.
A TikTok spokesperson called AB 1709 a “blatantly unconstitutional restriction on free expression”. MediaNama reported that TikTok also points to the practice of curating content based on user preferences, which it notes is used by bookshops, television networks and streaming services as well.
California’s defence
A representative for Attorney General Bonta said his office is reviewing the filings and is committed to defending what he called California’s “commonsense laws to protect kids online”. As of 6 November, no court had issued an order blocking AB 1709 or ruled on its constitutionality.
The state is expected to argue the law regulates product design, not speech — a distinction likely to sit at the centre of the cases.
A wider fight over children’s feeds
The challenge to AB 1709 is not the first courtroom clash between California and the technology industry over children’s use of social media. TikTok is already challenging an earlier California law, Senate Bill 976, which restricts personalised feeds for users under 18 without verified parental consent. That company’s appeal in the earlier case is pending before the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Google told US schools this week that they remain in control of whether to adopt its artificial intelligence tools, after the company faced questions about the choices it offers schools. The episode underlined how closely the largest platforms’ dealings with young users are now being watched, by regulators and by parents alike.
The legal fight also comes as deal-making continues across the sector: Palo Alto Networks is reportedly in talks to buy Clutch Security, an Israeli startup that secures the credentials used by AI agents, for about $500 million.
For now, the fate of AB 1709 rests with the federal courts. If the companies win an injunction before 1 January, the law will be paused while the constitutional arguments are heard. If they do not, platforms serving under-16s in California will have to rebuild parts of their feeds — or face fines of up to $50,000 per affected child.
