Meta, Google and TikTok sue to block California's under-16 feed ban

Meta, Google and TikTok filed separate federal lawsuits on 4 November to stop California's AB 1709 before it takes effect on 1 January. The law bars personalized feeds and autoplay for users under 16, and a parent cannot switch them back on. The companies say it breaks the First Amendment and Section 230. Three months ago the same three lost their first attempt to block a narrower California feed law.

What the law orders

Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1709 on 10 September. Its text calls addictive feeds and autoplay "psychologically exploitative features" and lets the Attorney General add more by regulation. An addictive feed is one that ranks posts using information tied to the user or device. Direct messages, searches that are not stored and posts a user explicitly asked for fall outside that definition.

A platform can keep an under-16 account only if those features are off. Otherwise it must delete the account and the personal data attached to it. The Attorney General or a local prosecutor can sue, with penalties of up to $50,000 per affected child for a knowing violation and up to $25,000 for a negligent one.

What the companies argue

Meta's complaint says the state "cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, override Meta's editorial judgments" about how to arrange third-party posts, Reuters reported. TikTok's says the law would ban its "For You" feed for under-16s and goes further than the 2024 law because parental consent no longer matters. All three also argue that Section 230, the federal shield for platforms over user content, overrides it.

Google is leaning on parents. "Overly broad laws like this actually break the systems we've built to help kids find high-quality, age-appropriate videos," a spokesperson said.

The bill's author, Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal, said the suit "comes straight out of Meta's playbook". Bonta's office said it is reviewing the filings and will defend the state's laws.

They already lost the first round

The same companies challenged the feed rules in SB 976, the 2024 Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act. On 5 August Judge Edward Davila denied a preliminary injunction. A feed built by predictive modelling, he wrote, "is not an 'expressive' message; it is merely a mirror that reflects back to users their own perceived interests." He refused again on 21 August to pause those rules during the appeal, which is now before the Ninth Circuit. He also noted that his view could change once the full case is heard.

The difference on consent gives the new suits an argument the old ones lacked: under SB 976 a parent could still say yes, and under AB 1709 nobody can. That is our reading, and no court has yet weighed it.

Why adults are in this too

The law's age check is not limited to children. Section 22684 says a platform must verify a user's age before providing an addictive feature, and "user" means anyone living in California. Personalized feeds are the default on these services, so a platform that keeps them for adults has to sort every account.

The first route is the Digital Age Assurance Act, under which apps ask the operating system or app store for an age bracket from 1 January 2027. If that fails, the platform falls back on the age determination required by SB 976. Rules proposed in May for that fallback would reject self-declared ages and would stop platforms from requiring a government ID. The Attorney General has until 1 January to adopt them.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which urged a veto, says the law "compels platforms to collect even more information from every user". Illinois and New York are building their own age checks, so a ruling here will be read well beyond California.