Google, Meta and TikTok challenge California limits on social media features for under-16s

Developing story first seen 2 hours ago

Engadget · 2 hours ago

New coverage confirms that Google, Meta and TikTok have each filed separate lawsuits in California to block a state law restricting certain social media features for under-16s. The legal challenge puts the companies’ free-speech claims against California’s effort to curb features it says can encourage compulsive use.

Assembly Bill 1709 bars platforms from offering under-16s features such as autoplaying videos and personalised recommendations. The companies argue the law violates the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act; the Electronic Frontier Foundation has also criticised it on privacy and free-speech grounds. The lawsuits are at an early stage, as the platforms face thousands of other claims alleging harm to children’s mental health; Meta has agreed to pay up to $18 billion to settle a separate case while denying wrongdoing.

Sources: 2
Outlets: 2
Left · Centre · Right: 1 · 0 · 0

In short

Google, Meta and TikTok are challenging California’s under-16 social media law.
The law targets autoplay and personalised recommendations.
The cases are at an early stage.

How this story developed

28 minutes ago Further reporting described the law’s targeted features as “psychologically exploitative” and noted that the cases remain at an early stage amid wider litigation over alleged harm to children’s mental health.
34 minutes ago Google, Meta and TikTok each sued in California to block a law barring platforms from offering under-16s autoplaying videos and personalised recommendations, arguing it violates free-speech protections and Section 230.

5 Nov, 20:42The Guardian Google, Meta and TikTok sue California to block law protecting children from addiction risk
5 Nov, 20:42Engadget Google, Meta and TikTok challenge California limits on social media features for under-16s

Full account

Google, Meta and TikTok have filed separate lawsuits seeking to block enforcement of a California law that limits certain social media features for children under 16. Assembly Bill 1709 is intended to reduce the risk of compulsive use by barring platforms from offering features the law describes as “psychologically exploitative”, including autoplay videos and personalised recommendations. It also requires accounts belonging to children that use those features to be deleted. The law is due to take effect on 1 January 2027 unless a court halts or overturns it.

The companies argue that the measure violates the US Constitution’s First Amendment protections for free speech and conflicts with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which limits platforms’ liability for content posted by users. Meta says the state cannot dictate how it curates and displays material. Google argues the restrictions could disrupt systems intended to help children find suitable videos, while TikTok says speech should not be restricted simply because lawmakers consider content unsuitable for young people. The companies also contend that the law intrudes on decisions they say should be made by parents.

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the bill on 10 September, saying children’s safety should be central to decisions about technology. The state attorney general’s office, the sole defendant in the cases, said it was reviewing the lawsuits and remained committed to defending laws designed to protect children online. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has also criticised the measure, describing it as a serious threat to privacy and free expression; it had unsuccessfully urged Newsom to veto it.

The lawsuits come amid wider disputes over children’s social media use and its possible effects on mental health. The source reports note that many US states have introduced restrictions, while some countries have adopted similar measures, including Australia’s ban on social media for under-16s. They also refer to Meta agreements with nearly all US states, under which it agreed to pay up to $18bn and limit teenagers’ use of Facebook and Instagram. The cases are at an early stage, and the courts have yet to rule on the companies’ claims.

Where outlets differ

From the full account, which is AI-written from the sources:

The first report places the law within a broader package introduced by Newsom and foregrounds the companies’ wider litigation over alleged harm to children, including claims by families, school districts and public bodies. The second gives more detail on the bill’s account-deletion requirement, its effective date, the attorney general’s response and the companies’ specific legal arguments.

The reports describe Meta’s state-level settlement differently: the first says it recently agreed to pay up to $18bn in a high-profile case concerning children’s privacy and social media addiction, while the second says the payment and limits on teenagers’ use of Facebook and Instagram arose from agreements with nearly all US states. The supplied second report ends mid-sentence, so it provides no further detail on those agreements.

Steelman: both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Supporters argue that autoplay and personalised recommendations can keep young users engaged in ways that are difficult to regulate through individual choice alone, so limiting these features for under-16s is a reasonable child-protection measure. They see the law as a response to credible concerns about children’s mental health and as a way to place responsibility on platforms to reduce foreseeable risks.

The case against

Opponents argue that recommendations and autoplay are part of how platforms select and present speech, so restricting them may infringe constitutional protections for editorial choice. They also raise concerns that the law’s broad rules could burden lawful expression, require intrusive age checks or data collection, and set a precedent for government control over online services.

Explained simply

Social media platforms use features such as video autoplay and personalised recommendations to decide what users see and to keep content flowing. California’s Assembly Bill 1709 targets some of these features for users under 16, amid concerns that they can encourage prolonged or compulsive use.

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech in the United States, while Section 230 is a federal law that limits platforms’ legal responsibility for much content posted by users. These rules are central to debates over how far governments can regulate online services. The issue matters because the outcome could affect both young people’s online experiences and how platforms design their services.