Google, Meta and TikTok Sue California to Block Its New Law on Addictive Social Media Feeds for Under-16s

Google, Meta and TikTok have gone to court to stop California’s new social media law before it even takes effect. The three tech giants filed separate lawsuits on Wednesday, 4 November 2026, arguing that the law — which bans “addictive” features such as personalised feeds and autoplay videos for children under 16 — breaks the free speech protections in the United States Constitution.

The law, known as Assembly Bill 1709 (AB 1709), was signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom on 10 September 2026 and is due to take effect on 1 January 2027. It is one of the strongest attempts yet by any American state to control how social media works for children, and the court fight over it could decide how much power governments have to regulate what young people see online.

The case matters far beyond California. The state is home to Silicon Valley and to the companies being sued, and its rules often set the pattern for the rest of the United States. Other countries are watching too: Australia banned social media for under-16s in December 2025, while France’s top court struck down a similar law over freedom of expression.

What happened

Google, Meta and TikTok each filed their own lawsuit in a different federal court in California. Google, which owns YouTube, filed in San Jose. Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and Threads, filed in San Francisco. TikTok, owned by China’s ByteDance, filed in Los Angeles.

All three companies are suing the same person: California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is responsible for enforcing the state’s laws and is the only defendant in the cases. His office said it is reviewing the lawsuits and remains committed to “defending California’s commonsense laws to protect kids online.”

The companies are asking the courts to block the law before it comes into force on 1 January 2027. No court dates have been set yet.

What is AB 1709?

AB 1709 is a California law that targets the design of social media platforms rather than the content on them. In simple terms, it says that platforms may not offer children under 16 features that the state calls “psychologically exploitative” — features designed to keep users scrolling and watching for as long as possible.

The two main features covered by the law are:

• Personalised recommendations — the feeds and “For You” pages that use algorithms to pick videos and posts for each individual user, based on what they have watched before.
• Autoplay — videos that start playing automatically, one after another, without the user choosing them.

Under the law, platforms must not give these features to users under 16, even if their parents agree. They must also take reasonable steps to stop children from getting them, and delete the accounts of under-16 users who keep receiving them. Breaking the rules can lead to fines of up to $50,000 for each affected child.

This is stricter than California’s earlier law on the same subject. Senate Bill 976, passed in 2024, also restricts personalised feeds for young users, but it allows them if parents give their consent. AB 1709 removes that option: for under-16s, the features are banned outright, with or without parental approval.

Governor Newsom signed the law saying that children’s safety should be central to any discussion about technology. “California will not stand by while unregulated technology puts our children at risk,” he said at the time.

What Google argues

Google and YouTube argue that the law takes decision-making power away from parents and hands it to the state. In their lawsuit, the companies said AB 1709 “wrests control of what kids watch from their parents and gives it to the State.”

Google’s main argument is that choosing which videos to recommend is an editorial decision — the same kind of decision a newspaper editor makes when choosing which stories to print — and that the First Amendment of the US Constitution protects it. The company says personalised recommendations help children find relevant videos among the billions uploaded to YouTube, and that removing them could actually increase children’s exposure to unsuitable content.

The company also argues that matching users with content is itself a form of publishing, even when the user has not asked for that content, and it pointed to a federal appeals court ruling to support that point. It says Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law that broadly protects online platforms from legal responsibility for user content, also protects its decisions about which videos to recommend and how to display them.

On autoplay, Google says the feature helps educational videos and related content play in sequence, and it notes that YouTube already disables autoplay by default for users under 18 and lets parents switch it off entirely for children under 13. The company argues that California cannot justify a complete ban when parents already have tools to control what their children watch.

What Meta argues

Meta argues that the law lets California interfere with its editorial decisions on Facebook, Instagram and Threads, including how it recommends and displays content posted by users.

“AB 1709 is California’s latest attempt to flout that fundamental principle and appoint the State as the editor, curator, and controller of online speech,” Meta said in its lawsuit.

The company put it even more directly in its complaint: “The state cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, override Meta’s editorial judgments about how to curate and display … billions of posts of third-party speech.”

Like Google, Meta argues that the First Amendment protects platforms’ decisions about organising and distributing content posted by other people, just as it protects the editorial choices of traditional publishers. It also argues that recommendations, autoplay and decisions to remove user accounts are publishing activities protected by Section 230.

Meta further argues that the restrictions are too broad because they apply to all users under 16, regardless of how much time they spend online or their individual circumstances.

At the same time, Meta says it plans to introduce a default two-hour daily time limit for minors using Facebook and Instagram, which parents or guardians will be able to change. It also plans to offer options to turn off personalised feeds and autoplay.

Meta’s position is shaped by recent history. In August 2026, the company agreed to pay up to $18 billion and limit teenagers’ use of Facebook and Instagram under agreements with nearly all US states, which had accused it of breaking privacy and consumer protection laws.

What TikTok argues

TikTok argues that the law threatens its “For You” feed, the heart of the app, which uses algorithms to select and arrange videos for each user. The company says these decisions are protected expression under the First Amendment.

“TikTok thus creates a ‘distinctive expressive product’ every time it delivers a curated collection of videos to a user,” the company said in its lawsuit, citing a 2024 Supreme Court ruling.

TikTok argues that California has not shown a strong enough reason for the restrictions, or proved that they are necessary to protect children. “The State cannot link the challenged provisions of the Act to substantial or compelling governmental interests,” the lawsuit states.

The company also says the law restricts more expression than necessary and ignores safeguards that already exist, including its Family Pairing feature, which lets parents manage screen time, privacy settings and content restrictions for their children’s accounts.

TikTok is already fighting California on similar ground. It is challenging Senate Bill 976, the earlier law that restricts personalised feeds for users under 18 without parental consent, and its appeal in that case is still pending before the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

What the critics say

Not everyone who opposes the law is a tech company. Digital rights groups have also raised concerns. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit that campaigns for digital rights, called the law “a massive privacy and free speech nightmare.”

The foundation warns that enforcing the rules could force platforms to collect even more personal information to work out how old each user is, affecting adults as well as children. “AB 1709 compels platforms to collect even more information from every user, invading everyone’s privacy and frustrating our ability to remain anonymous online,” said Rindala Alajaji, the organisation’s associate director of state affairs.

It also argues that restricting teenagers’ access to social media could limit their ability to get information, take part in public discussions and organise social movements. Some critics have accused California of overreaching by restricting children’s access to the internet.

Why this fight matters

The lawsuits are part of a much bigger battle over social media and children’s safety that is playing out in courts and parliaments around the world.

The companies and Snapchat’s parent company, Snap, still face thousands of lawsuits from individuals, school districts, towns and other government bodies. Those cases claim the companies deliberately designed their products to addict children and caused a mental health crisis, leading to harms such as anxiety, depression and suicide.

At the same time, governments are moving in different directions. Australia banned social media for under-16s in December 2025. France’s top court struck down a similar law because of freedom of expression concerns. Many US states now regulate children’s access to social media in one way or another, and California’s approach is among the toughest.

The outcome of these three lawsuits could shape the rules for years to come. If the companies win, it will become much harder for states to regulate how social media platforms are designed for children. If California wins, other states — and other countries — are likely to copy its approach.

For parents, the case raises a simple question with no easy answer: who should decide what children see online — the child’s parents, the tech company, or the government? Google, Meta and TikTok say the answer should be parents, with the companies’ own tools to help. California says parents alone cannot protect children from products designed to keep them hooked, and the state has to step in.

What happens next

The three cases will now move through the three federal courts where they were filed — San Jose, San Francisco and Los Angeles. The companies want judges to block the law before it takes effect on 1 January 2027, so the first decisions could come quickly.

The Attorney General’s office will defend the law, and the cases could eventually reach higher courts, including the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and possibly the Supreme Court.

Whatever the courts decide, the debate is not going away. The companies face thousands of other lawsuits over addiction and mental health, and governments around the world are still working out how — and whether — to control what children can see and do on social media.

FAQ

What is AB 1709?

AB 1709 is a California law that bans social media platforms from offering “addictive” features — personalised recommendations and autoplay videos — to users under 16. It was signed in September 2026 and takes effect on 1 January 2027.

Who is suing California?

Google (which owns YouTube), Meta (which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads) and TikTok each filed separate lawsuits on 4 November 2026.

What do the companies want?

They want federal courts to block the law, arguing it violates the First Amendment’s free speech protections and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Does the law ban children from social media?

No. It does not ban under-16 accounts. It only bans certain features — personalised feeds and autoplay — for users under 16, even if their parents agree.

What are the fines for breaking the law?

Violations can attract penalties of up to $50,000 per affected user.

Who is being sued?

California Attorney General Rob Bonta is the only defendant. His office says it will defend the law.

What happens now?

The cases will be heard in federal courts in San Jose, San Francisco and Los Angeles. The companies are asking judges to block the law before it takes effect on 1 January 2027.

Conclusion

Google, Meta and TikTok have drawn a clear line: they say California’s new law goes too far, takes decisions away from parents and breaks the free speech protections in the US Constitution. California says the law is common sense — a necessary step to protect children from products designed to keep them scrolling.

Both sides agree on one thing: how children use social media is one of the defining questions of our time. The courts will now decide how far a government can go in answering it.

Sources

• Reuters (via Duke FM) — “Google, Meta, TikTok sue to block California youth social media law” (5 November 2026): https://dukecountry.fm/2026/11/05/google-meta-tiktok-sue-to-block-california-youth-social-media-law/
• MediaNama — “Meta, Google and TikTok sue California over ban on personalised feeds and autoplay for under-16s” (6 November 2026): https://www.medianama.com/2026/11/223-meta-google-tiktok-sue-california-ban-under-16s/
• Financial News — “Meta, Google and TikTok Sue Over California Social Media Law” (6 November 2026): https://www.financial-news.co.uk/meta-google-and-tiktok-sue-over-california-social-media-law/

This article is for general information and education only. It is not legal or financial advice.