Google, Meta and TikTok have each sued California in federal court, asking judges to block a new state law that would ban personalised feeds and autoplay videos for children under 16 — the latest courtroom clash over who decides what young people see online.
The three companies filed separate lawsuits on Wednesday 4 November against California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the law's sole defendant, arguing that Assembly Bill 1709 violates the US Constitution's First Amendment free-speech protections and is pre-empted by Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act. The law, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on 10 September, is due to take effect on 1 January 2027 unless a judge voids it or puts it on hold.
What AB 1709 would do
The law targets what it calls "psychologically exploitative features" — design choices the state says are built to keep children scrolling. For users under 16, platforms would be barred from offering personalised recommendations and autoplay videos, and would have to delete the accounts of children whose features are not switched off.
| Provision | What it means in practice |
|---|---|
| Personalised feeds banned for under-16s | No algorithmically tailored recommendations for children, even with parental consent |
| Autoplay banned for under-16s | Videos must not play automatically one after another |
| Account deletion | Platforms must delete under-16 accounts that keep the banned features on |
| Penalties | Up to $50,000 per affected user under 16 for non-compliance |
| Effective date | 1 January 2027, unless a court intervenes |
Newsom, signing the bill in September, 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."
The companies' case
All three companies argue that the law wrongly compels them to follow the state's preferred way of presenting content to children, substituting the government's judgment for that of parents and of the platforms' own editorial decisions.
Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, said in its lawsuit that California cannot override its editorial judgment about how to curate and display billions of posts. "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," the company wrote in its filing.
"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."
— TikTok spokesperson, in a statement reported by TechCrunch
Google, which owns YouTube, made a similar argument and pointed to the parental controls it already offers. "Parents are best positioned to make the right decisions for their families," Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said. "Overly broad laws like this actually break the systems we've built to help kids find high-quality, age-appropriate videos." Google noted that autoplay on YouTube is already turned off for minors by default, and that parents can switch off their teenagers' access to Shorts altogether.
TikTok argued in its filing that protected speech "cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable."
Why three lawsuits, not one? Each company sued separately, in a different federal court: Google in San Jose, Meta in San Francisco and TikTok in Los Angeles. The three cases will move through three different districts, with no court dates yet set — but the arguments are closely aligned, and a ruling in any one of them is likely to shape the others.
California's defence
Attorney General Bonta's office said on Thursday that it is reviewing the filings. "Our office is committed to defending California's commonsense laws to protect kids online," a representative said.
California is not alone in moving against addictive design. Many US states regulate children's access to social media, and the companies — along with Snapchat parent Snap — still face thousands of lawsuits from individuals, school districts, municipalities and other government bodies claiming they deliberately sought to addict children and caused a mental-health crisis, with harms including anxiety, depression and suicide.
The legal pressure has already produced one major settlement. In August 2026, Meta agreed to pay up to $18 billion and limit teenagers' use of Facebook and Instagram under agreements with 29 US states, which had accused it of violating privacy and consumer-protection laws.
Critics say the law could backfire
The companies are not the only critics. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital-rights advocacy group, called AB 1709 "a massive privacy and free speech nightmare". Its associate director of state affairs, Rindala Alajaji, argued that the law compels platforms to collect even more information from every user to work out who is under 16, "invading everyone's privacy and frustrating our ability to remain anonymous online".
Alajaji also warned that, as a practical matter, the law functions as a ban on social media for under-16s, cutting young people off from information and experiences — including, she noted, the kind of digital activism used by the Parkland shooting survivors' March for Our Lives movement and by climate activists.
What is not yet settled: No court has yet ruled on AB 1709, and the companies' claims — that the law violates the First Amendment and is pre-empted by Section 230 — are arguments in a lawsuit, not findings. California has not yet filed its formal response in court. The law's fate will turn on how the three federal judges weigh free-speech protections against the state's interest in protecting children.
A global pattern
California's law is part of a worldwide wave of restrictions on young people's social media use, and the outcomes elsewhere have been mixed.
- Australia: In December 2025, Australia became the first country to ban social media outright for users under 16.
- France: France passed a similar law, but its top court struck it down, citing concerns about violations of free-expression rights — a precedent the companies are likely to cite.
- California, again: TikTok is already challenging an earlier California law, Senate Bill 976, which restricts personalised feeds for users under 18 without parental consent. Its appeal is pending before the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The pattern matters because the same companies are fighting similar battles in several countries at once — and a win or loss in California, the home state of Google and Meta and the largest US market, would echo well beyond its borders.
Frequently asked questions
What exactly does AB 1709 ban?
For users under 16, it bans social platforms from offering "psychologically exploitative features" — chiefly personalised recommendations and autoplay videos — and requires platforms to delete the accounts of under-16 users who do not have those features switched off. Violations can attract fines of up to $50,000 per affected user.
When does the law take effect?
1 January 2027, unless a judge voids it or puts it on hold first. The three lawsuits were filed on 4 November 2026, giving the courts under two months to act before the deadline.
Why do the companies say it violates the First Amendment?
They argue that choosing how to organise and present content is editorial speech, protected by the First Amendment, and that the law also conflicts with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which broadly shields platforms from liability over user content. They also say the law overrides parents' decisions about their children's internet use.
Is this the first time California has tried this?
No. An earlier law, Senate Bill 976, restricts personalised feeds for users under 18 without parental consent, and TikTok is already challenging it in the Ninth Circuit. AB 1709 goes further: it applies to under-16s and bans the features outright, even with parental consent.
What happens next
The immediate question is whether any of the three federal judges will grant a preliminary injunction before 1 January, pausing the law while the cases are argued. If no injunction is granted, the platforms will have to comply from New Year's Day — removing personalised feeds and autoplay for under-16 users in California, or deleting their accounts — while the litigation continues.
Longer term, the cases will test how far a state can go in regulating the design of social media. California has defended similar laws before and lost some: courts have repeatedly struck down or narrowed state attempts to restrict online content on First Amendment grounds. But the political pressure behind child-safety legislation has never been stronger, and the $18 billion Meta settlement shows the states are willing to extract a high price. The three California courtrooms will now decide whether AB 1709 survives — and with it, the model other states and countries may follow.
Key takeaways
- Google, Meta and TikTok filed separate federal lawsuits on 4 November 2026 to block California's AB 1709, which bans personalised feeds and autoplay for under-16s from 1 January 2027.
- The companies argue the law violates the First Amendment and is pre-empted by Section 230; California says it is defending "commonsense laws to protect kids online".
- Non-compliance could cost up to $50,000 per affected user under 16, and platforms must delete under-16 accounts that keep the banned features on.
- The law follows Australia's under-16 social media ban and France's similar law, which its top court struck down — and comes months after Meta's $18 billion child-safety settlement with 29 states.
- No court has yet ruled; the first test is whether a judge pauses the law before it takes effect on 1 January.
