Meta, Google and TikTok Sue to Block California Teen Social Media Law
Meta, Google and TikTok filed federal lawsuits to stop California's AB 1709, which bars autoplay and personalized feeds for users under 16.
Meta, Google and TikTok have each filed federal lawsuits to stop a new California law that would bar social media platforms from offering autoplay videos and personalized feeds to users under 16. The companies say the measure violates the First Amendment and conflicts with federal law. The suits name California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the state’s top law enforcement officer, as the defendant. They were filed this week, weeks before the law is set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2027.
What happened
The law, Assembly Bill 1709, was signed by Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, in September. TechCrunch reported that it prohibits platforms from giving users under 16 autoplay videos or feeds tailored to their interests, and that platforms must delete under-16 accounts that keep those features turned on. Violations could bring fines of up to $50,000 for each affected minor, according to TechCrunch.
The Los Angeles Times reported that the companies sued on Wednesday. Meta and Google, including its video service YouTube, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, while TikTok filed in the Central District. According to the video industry publication Tubefilter, each company is asking a judge for an injunction that would stop Bonta from enforcing the law against it.
The suits rest on two main arguments:
- Free speech: The companies say choosing how to arrange and display content is protected expression, so the state cannot dictate how they curate feeds.
- Federal preemption: They argue that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the 1996 federal law that generally shields online platforms from liability over content posted by users, overrides the state measure.
What the companies and the state say
In its filing, Meta’s lawyers wrote that California is trying to “appoint the State as the editor, curator and controller of online speech,” the Los Angeles Times reported. They argued the law would override the company’s editorial judgment about how to display billions of posts from its users.
A TikTok spokesperson called the law “a blatantly unconstitutional restriction on free expression,” according to Tubefilter. TechCrunch reported that TikTok compared its recommendation system to the way bookstores, TV networks and streaming services organize material around what audiences like. TikTok’s lawyers also argued that the new law effectively overrides an earlier California statute that allows personalized feeds for minors with parental consent, meaning a parent could no longer choose such a feed for a 15-year-old, the Times reported.
Google took a narrower approach. TechCrunch reported that the company noted YouTube already turns off autoplay by default for minors and lets parents block access to its short-video feature, Shorts. Google argued the law would disrupt systems that steer children toward age-appropriate videos. Jose Castaneda, a Google spokesperson, told Reuters that “parents are best positioned to make the right decisions for their families,” Tubefilter reported.
Bonta’s office said it is reviewing the lawsuits. A representative said the office is “committed to defending California’s commonsense laws to protect kids online,” according to Tubefilter and TechCrunch.
The bill’s author, Josh Lowenthal, a Democratic member of the California State Assembly from Long Beach, told the Los Angeles Times that autoplay and similar features are “harmful, full stop,” and not appropriate for developing brains. He said he was moved by rising anxiety and depression among children who grew up with phones, tablets and screens.
Why it matters
The stakes for the platforms are high. Tubefilter noted that because recommendation algorithms and autoplay are built into the core design of YouTube, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook, the law could in practice keep users under 16 off those services.
The measure has also drawn criticism from digital rights groups. Rindala Alajaji of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that advocates for civil liberties online, told TechCrunch that enforcing the law would push platforms to collect more personal data from all users, including adults, to verify ages, reducing anonymity online. She also argued that sharply limiting teens’ access would cut young people off from information and activism.
Background and what comes next
The new suits add to a long-running legal fight. In 2025, Meta and others sued over SB 976, the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, which bars addictive feeds for minors without parental consent. The Times reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is likely to hear arguments in that case next spring, and that SB 976 is also due to take effect on Jan. 1.
Pressure on the industry has been building. California and dozens of other states sued Meta in 2023, alleging that it designed features that harmed children. The outlets differ slightly on the size of the settlement that followed: the Los Angeles Times put it at up to $17 billion, along with platform changes such as default two-hour daily limits for teens, while TechCrunch described it as up to $18 billion with 29 states. In March, a Los Angeles jury found Instagram and YouTube responsible for harm to a young woman and awarded her $6 million, the Times reported.
Outside the U.S., Australia became the first country to ban social media for users under 16 in December 2025. TechCrunch reported that France passed a similar law but that its top court struck it down over free expression concerns.
No ruling on the new suits had been reported as of Thursday. The law’s start date is less than two months away, and the companies are seeking court orders that would keep it from being enforced against them.
