Google, Meta and TikTok have filed separate federal lawsuits seeking to block a new California law restricting social media features for children under 16. The companies argue that the legislation violates constitutional free speech protections and interferes with how their platforms recommend and display content.
The lawsuits were filed Wednesday, November 4, 2026, in federal courts in California. They challenge Assembly Bill 1709, which Governor Gavin Newsom signed on September 10 and which is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2027.
The law targets features designed to keep users engaged for extended periods, including endless scrolling, automatically playing videos and personalized recommendations. It also requires platforms to take reasonable steps to determine users' ages and prevent younger children from accessing restricted features.
California officials say the legislation is intended to protect children from potentially harmful online experiences. The technology companies maintain that it goes too far by restricting protected expression and limiting parental choices.
What California's New Social Media Law Requires
Assembly Bill 1709 establishes restrictions on internet platforms that use features intended to encourage prolonged or compulsive engagement. The legislation focuses on the design of social media services rather than banning particular topics or categories of online content.
Under the law, covered platforms cannot provide prohibited addictive features to users younger than 16. Those features include endless scrolling, autoplay and recommendation systems that use personal information or behavior to keep users engaged.
The legislation also creates requirements involving accounts held by younger users. Companies must remove prohibited features or take other steps required by the law, including deleting accounts when they cannot comply with its restrictions.
Platforms are required to use reasonable age-assurance measures to help determine whether users fall within the protected age group. The law works alongside California's broader Digital Age Assurance Act, which establishes a system for communicating age-bracket information through operating systems and application stores.
Violations could carry substantial financial penalties. Under AB 1709, companies may face civil penalties of up to $50,000 per affected minor for knowing violations and up to $25,000 for negligent violations.
The law also establishes an e-Safety Advisory Commission to provide guidance on online safety and advise state officials about implementation. Its responsibilities include reviewing how digital protections affect children and recommending potential changes.
California Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal, a Democrat representing Long Beach, introduced the legislation. Earlier versions included broader restrictions on social media access, but lawmakers narrowed the measure before its passage.
The final version focuses on particular platform features and their availability to younger users. That distinction is central to the legal dispute because the companies argue that organizing and recommending content involves constitutionally protected expression.
Tech Companies Argue the Law Violates Free Speech
Google, Meta and TikTok filed separate complaints against California Attorney General Rob Bonta, challenging the state's authority to regulate how online platforms deliver content.
The companies argue that the First Amendment protects their decisions about selecting, organizing and recommending material. They contend that California is attempting to dictate how private platforms present information to users.
According to Reuters, the companies also maintain that the restrictions improperly replace parental judgment with decisions made by the state. Their lawsuits argue that parents should retain authority over the digital experiences available to their children.
Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, says the law interferes with its editorial decisions about how content is displayed. The company argues that personalized recommendations and automated media playback are integral parts of how its services operate.
TikTok has challenged the restrictions on similar grounds. The company argues that organizing content according to user interests is a common practice across media industries, including television, bookstores and streaming services.
Google, which owns YouTube, has emphasized its existing parental controls and age-appropriate viewing tools. The company says its services already include protections intended to help families manage what children watch.
Google spokesperson José Castañeda warned that broad restrictions could interfere with systems designed to recommend appropriate educational and entertainment content to younger audiences.
The companies have not persuaded a court to invalidate the law. Their lawsuits present legal arguments that judges must evaluate before deciding whether the restrictions can be enforced.
Section 230 Becomes Another Legal Battleground
Beyond their First Amendment arguments, all three companies are invoking Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
Section 230 generally protects online platforms from being treated as the publishers or speakers of content created by third parties. It has played a major role in the development of social media by limiting certain types of legal liability involving user-generated material.
The companies argue that California's law conflicts with federal protections because it attempts to regulate how platforms organize and distribute third-party content.
California's restrictions, however, focus on platform design and access to features associated with prolonged engagement. The legal dispute therefore involves whether the state is regulating business practices or improperly controlling protected editorial decisions.
Those issues are not interchangeable. A court could evaluate the First Amendment and Section 230 claims separately, and a successful argument under one legal theory would not necessarily establish the other.
The outcome could influence how other states write laws governing social media recommendations, autoplay and age restrictions. Courts have already faced related disputes over whether governments may regulate platform features without infringing on speech protections.
California Says It Will Defend the Legislation
California Attorney General Rob Bonta's office said Thursday that it was reviewing the complaints and remained committed to defending the state's online child-safety laws.
Governor Newsom promoted the legislation when he signed it in September as part of a broader package addressing children's digital safety. The package also included measures regulating artificial intelligence chatbots and strengthening protections against online exploitation.
Supporters argue that features such as infinite scrolling and algorithmically selected content can encourage excessive use. They believe limiting these systems for younger children is an appropriate response to concerns about mental health and online safety.
The technology companies disagree that California's approach offers the best protection. They argue that restricting recommendation systems could remove features that help children find suitable content while limiting parents' ability to manage their own families' online activities.
Privacy advocates have raised separate concerns about age-verification requirements. Determining users' ages can involve collecting sensitive information, depending on the verification method used.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has criticized the California legislation over its potential consequences for privacy and free expression. Such concerns show that opposition extends beyond the companies directly affected by the restrictions.
These disagreements leave courts with several competing questions involving children's welfare, individual privacy, parental authority and constitutional protections.
Lawsuits Follow Major Meta Settlement
The California legal challenges come as social media companies face increasing scrutiny over allegations that their platforms contribute to harmful or compulsive use among children.
In August 2026, Meta reached a major settlement with state attorneys general over claims involving the safety of Facebook and Instagram. The agreement provides for payments of up to approximately $18.6 billion and requires changes to certain protections for younger users.
According to Meta's financial disclosures, approximately $12.7 billion of the settlement payments are scheduled over 10 years. Another portion is conditional on other major platforms adopting comparable protections and meeting additional requirements.
The agreement includes stronger safeguards for users under 18, including limits on daily use and restrictions during overnight hours. Meta has denied wrongdoing in the underlying litigation.
The settlement resolved claims brought by most state attorneys general, although some states continued pursuing separate cases. Thousands of additional lawsuits involving alleged social media harms also remain part of the wider legal landscape.
TikTok separately reached a settlement with Alabama in September involving allegations about addictive platform features. That agreement was another development in the growing number of cases examining how social media services affect younger users.
These lawsuits and settlements address different legal questions from California's new restrictions. The allegations against individual companies do not, by themselves, establish that AB 1709 is constitutional or that every covered feature causes harm.
What Happens Before the January Deadline
California's law is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2027, leaving a relatively short period for the federal courts to consider the companies' challenges.
The immediate issue is whether any judge will temporarily block enforcement while the lawsuits proceed. Such an order could delay the law's implementation without resolving the underlying constitutional claims.
If the restrictions take effect, covered companies will need to ensure that prohibited features are not available to users under 16. That could require changes to recommendation systems, account management and age-assurance procedures.
If courts block the law, California officials may need to defend the measure through additional proceedings or consider revisions to address legal objections.
For parents and younger users, the practical impact will depend on both the court decisions and the measures platforms adopt to comply with any restrictions that remain in force.
The lawsuits now place California's effort to regulate social media design before federal judges. Their next decisions will determine whether the state can begin enforcing its new protections as scheduled at the start of 2027.