Meta, Google and TikTok sue California to block teen social media law AB 1709

What happened

Meta, Google and TikTok have filed separate lawsuits against California Attorney General Rob Bonta in an effort to stop AB 1709, a state law that restricts social media features lawmakers consider addictive for users under 16, according to TechCrunch. The statute, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in September, is due to take effect at the start of the new year.

What the law requires

AB 1709 bars platforms from serving autoplaying videos and algorithmically personalized feeds to users under 16, and obliges them to delete the accounts of minors who decline to switch those features off. Companies that fail to comply face penalties of up to $50,000 for each affected user under 16.

The platforms' legal argument

All three companies frame the measure as a speech restriction. Meta contends that AB 1709 overrides its editorial judgment about how content is presented and is preempted by Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, and TechCrunch reports that TikTok and Google raise similar claims. In its filing, Meta argues that because its feeds currently rely on personalized recommendations and autoplay, the statute would make it illegal for the company to serve content to minors at all unless it changes those practices, and would force it to terminate minors' accounts.

TikTok, in a statement, described the law as an unconstitutional limit on expression that targets a form of content curation long used by bookstores, television networks and streaming services.

Google is leaning on parental controls instead. A company spokesperson pointed out that autoplay on YouTube is already disabled by default for minors and that parents can switch off access to Shorts entirely, arguing that families rather than legislators are best placed to decide what teenagers can see, and that overly broad laws undermine the safeguards the company has built.

Bonta's office said it is reviewing the complaints and remains committed to defending the state's online child-protection measures.

Digital rights groups also object

Opposition is not limited to the platforms. The Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that enforcing age-based rules requires platforms to verify the ages of all users, which means collecting more data from everyone and eroding the ability to remain anonymous online. EFF Associate Director of State Affairs Rindala Alajaji said the law operates as a de facto ban on social media for under-16s that cuts young people off from information and communities, and noted that teenage users have driven movements such as March for Our Lives, organized by Parkland shooting survivors, and the climate activism amplified by Greta Thunberg.

A wider regulatory fight

The lawsuits arrive amid a global wave of youth social media legislation. According to TechCrunch, Meta separately agreed to a settlement worth as much as $18 billion to resolve children's safety claims brought by 29 U.S. states. Australia became the first country to outlaw social media for under-16s in December 2025, while France passed comparable legislation only for its top court to strike it down on free expression grounds.

Why it matters

The California cases could settle questions that reach well beyond one state: whether algorithmic feeds and autoplay count as protected editorial choices or as regulatable product design, whether Section 230 shields platforms from design mandates as well as content liability, and how governments can restrict minors' access without imposing identity checks on the entire user base. A ruling in the platforms' favor would mark the outer limits of age-based design regulation, an outcome France has already seen. A ruling for the state would embolder legislatures elsewhere pursuing similar laws. Either way, the decision is likely to become a reference point for every jurisdiction weighing how, and whether, to police social media for young users.