The three companies sued to stop a California youth online safety law from going into effect.
Credit: Thomas Trutschel / Contributor
Three of the biggest social media companies want to block a California law designed to reduce youth social media addiction from going into law.
On Wednesday, Google, Meta, and TikTok each filed lawsuits against California’s attorney general, Rob Bonta.
Beginning on Jan. 1, 2027, the bill (AB 1709) would prohibit platforms including Google, Meta, and TikTok from providing “an addictive feature” to users under 16. The law describes such features as “psychologically exploitative” and intended to maximize engagement in a way that leads to compulsive use. This includes infinite scroll, autoplay, and an “addictive” feed.
The law also requires platforms to “implement reasonable measures” so that young users aren’t offered such features.
The companies argue that the law infringes on their free speech rights, as well as Section 230, a provision of a 1996 federal law designed to shield online platforms from liability related to user content. Critics of Section 230 say it wrongly provides online platforms with broad immunity.
Google claimed in its lawsuit that its subsidiary, YouTube, personalizes recommendations to ensure that young users receive content relevant to their interests and appropriate for their age and developmental needs. The company defended autoplay as helping users enjoy content uninterrupted and sequentially, like a playlist for educational videos.
“AB 1709’s bans on personalized recommendations and autoplay would therefore frustrate YouTube’s efforts to provide under-16 users with safe, responsible, and enriching experiences on the platform,” the lawsuit said.
Meta said that its services “collectively enable billions of people around the world to share ideas, offer support, discuss important topics.” Prohibiting personalized feeds and autoplay, would “make it unlawful for Meta to disseminate speech to minors altogether,” the company argued.
Lennon Torres, director of movement partnerships at the advocacy organization Heat Initiative, rejected the companies’ arguments. Torres, a former child influencer, worked with the bill’s author to address First Amendment concerns.
“They’re framing this as a free speech fight, but what’s really at stake is a business model that profits from keeping kids scrolling, even when it puts them at risk,” Torres said. (Torres is a Mashable contributor.)
California’s Attorney General’s office told Reuters that it was reviewing the filings.
“Our office is committed to defending California’s commonsense laws to protect kids online,” the office said in a statement to Reuters.
In August, Meta settled a youth social media safety and addiction case for $17 billion, though the company did not admit guilt or liability. As part of that settlement, Meta agreed to limit teens’ daily time spent on Instagram and Facebook to two hours; block access to both platforms overnight and during school hours; give teens the option to create a default non-algorithmic feed; and allow teens to turn off autoplay.
Meta also issued a “call to action” to YouTube and TikTok to adopt what the company describes as a new “industry standard.” Neither companyjoined the settlement terms.
