Google, Meta and TikTok Sue California Over Teen Social Media Law AB 1709

Google, Meta Platforms and TikTok have filed separate federal lawsuits against California, asking courts to block a new state law that would ban addictive social media features for children under 16 before it takes effect on January 1, 2027. The California teen social media law, Assembly Bill 1709, is the state's most far-reaching attempt yet to regulate how platforms engage young users, setting up a major First Amendment fight over who decides what children see online.

Filed on Wednesday, November 4, 2026, the suits name California Attorney General Rob Bonta as the sole defendant in all three cases: Google filed in San Jose, Meta in San Francisco and TikTok in Los Angeles. Bonta's office said it is reviewing the filings and is committed to defending the law.

Key Points

• Google, Meta and TikTok filed separate federal lawsuits on November 4, 2026, seeking to block California Assembly Bill 1709 before it takes effect on January 1, 2027.
• AB 1709, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 10, 2026, bans platforms from offering users under 16 "psychologically exploitative features", including personalised feeds and autoplay videos.
• Platforms must delete the accounts of under-16 users who keep receiving those features; knowing violations carry fines of up to $50,000 per affected user.
• The companies argue the law violates the First Amendment, conflicts with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and overrides parents' decisions.
• Attorney General Rob Bonta is the sole defendant in all three suits, and his office says it will defend California's laws to protect children online.

What Happened

Assembly Bill 1709 was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 10, 2026. It bars platforms from offering under-16s features the law calls "psychologically exploitative" — personalised recommendations and feeds, and videos that play automatically. If a platform cannot switch those features off for a young user, it must delete the account.

The penalties are steep: up to $50,000 per affected user for a knowing violation and up to $25,000 for a negligent one. The three companies make closely related arguments — that AB 1709 violates the First Amendment by overriding their editorial judgment, conflicts with Section 230, and substitutes the state's judgment for that of parents. With the law due to take effect on January 1, 2027, courts have under two months to decide if it can be enforced at all.

Background and Context

California has been the most aggressive US state in regulating social media for young users. In 2024 it passed Senate Bill 976, restricting personalised feeds for under-18s without parental consent; TikTok is already challenging that law, with an appeal pending before the Ninth Circuit. AB 1709 goes further, drawing a harder line at 16 and banning the features outright.

The law is part of a wider global push. In December 2025, Australia became the first country to ban social media for under-16s altogether; France passed a similar law, but its top court struck it down. The fight also comes as Meta faces pressure over children's safety, having recently agreed to pay up to $18 billion to settle children's safety claims brought by 29 US states.

California Teen Social Media Law: What AB 1709 Would Ban

At its core, AB 1709 targets two design choices that define modern social media: feeds shaped by personalised recommendations, and videos that start playing on their own. For under-16s, California says platforms must offer neither — and must delete the accounts of young users who keep receiving those features, which the companies say would effectively bar many teenagers from their services.

Enforcement would fall to the attorney general. The law applies to platforms operating in California, the home state of Google and Meta and the largest social media market in the United States — which is why the industry is fighting it in three federal courts at once.

Reactions and Quotes

TikTok was blunt. A spokesperson said: "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." Meta argued in its filing that the law would make it unlawful "to disseminate speech to minors altogether" unless it changes its feeds.

Google stressed parents' role. "We believe parents are best positioned to make the right decisions for their families," a spokesperson said, adding that "overly broad laws like this actually break the systems we've built to help kids find high-quality, age-appropriate videos." The company noted autoplay on YouTube is already off for minors by default.

A representative for Attorney General Bonta said the office is reviewing the filings and is committed to "defending California's commonsense laws to protect kids online." Privacy advocates also oppose the law: the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Rindala Alajaji warned it "compels platforms to collect even more information from every user, invading everyone's privacy".

Why It Matters

This case tests how far states can go in regulating social media design. If California's law survives, other states are likely to copy it, and the biggest platforms would have to rebuild core features — personalised feeds and autoplay — for millions of young users. If it falls, it would confirm that the First Amendment and Section 230 sharply limit what states can demand of online services.

For families, supporters say the law would give children a less addictive online experience and take pressure off parents. Critics say age checks would force platforms to collect more personal data from everyone, and teenagers would lose access to information, creative communities and activism.

What Happens Next

The immediate question is whether any of the three courts will block the law before January 1, 2027. The companies are expected to seek preliminary injunctions, and a ruling in San Jose, San Francisco or Los Angeles could set the tone for the others. Appeals would go to the Ninth Circuit, which is already weighing TikTok's challenge to the earlier SB 976 law, with the longer arc pointing toward the Supreme Court.

For more on the tech giants' battles with regulators, see our reports on Google, OpenAI, Microsoft and Anthropic backing a single no-scrape signal, DuckDuckGo pitching AI-free search to US schools after Google's AI ultimatum and Meta raising $15 billion in bonds and launching its first euro bonds for its AI push.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is AB 1709?

AB 1709 is a California law, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 10, 2026, banning social media platforms from offering under-16s features the law calls "psychologically exploitative", including personalised feeds and autoplay videos.

When does the law take effect?

AB 1709 is due to take effect on January 1, 2027, unless a court blocks it first.

What features would be banned for under-16s?

Personalised recommendations and feeds, and autoplay videos. Platforms must also delete the accounts of under-16 users who keep receiving them.

Why are Google, Meta and TikTok suing?

They argue it violates the First Amendment, conflicts with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and takes decisions about children's online lives away from parents.

What penalties could platforms face?

Up to $50,000 per affected user for knowing violations and up to $25,000 per user for negligent violations.