Meta, Google and TikTok sue California to block law shielding children from ‘addictive’ algorithms

Meta, Google and TikTok sued California on Wednesday, accusing the state of unlawfully trying to take over the role of editor, curator and parent in deciding what young people see online.

The tech mammoths each filed separate federal lawsuits against state Attorney General Rob Bonta seeking to block Assembly Bill 1709, a law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Sept. 10 that bars social media platforms from offering so-called “addictive features” to users under 16.

The law is set to take effect Jan. 1.

All three companies argue the law violates the First Amendment by dictating how they select and display content.

They also say it is preempted by federal Section 230 protections and overrides parents’ choices while ignoring controls the platforms already offer, according to the filings reviewed by the California Post.

The state law covers personalized feeds, autoplay and any other feature the attorney general deemed “addictive.”

Under the law, platforms must verify users’ ages and delete the accounts of anyone under 16 unless those accounts are stripped of such features.

The attorney general or local prosecutors can seek penalties of up to $50,000 per affected minor for knowing violations and $25,000 for negligent ones.

AB 1709 goes further than a 2024 state law, SB 976, which barred personalized feeds for users under 18 without parental consent. The new law offers no such exception. All three companies are already challenging SB 976 at the Ninth Circuit.

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters

Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads, framed the case as a fight over who controls online speech.

“The First Amendment protects the editorial judgments of those who curate, display, and disseminate speech — whether newspapers, parade organizers, or social media platforms,” the company wrote in its complaint, filed in the Northern District of California. “California Assembly Bill 1709 (the ‘Act’ or ‘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 also argued that the autoplay ban, “by forcing Meta to make users take affirmative action before Meta can display expression—infringes Meta’s right to engage in the ‘free and unhampered distribution of’ speech.”

Meta argues the law unfairly spares streaming services and review sites like Yelp. The company says it will soon give California teens default limits that only parents can change, including a two-hour daily cap, an overnight block and muted notifications during school hours.

“We are challenging this law because it violates the First Amendment by letting the government dictate how ideas are organized, displayed, or shared with Californians,” a Meta spokesperson told the Post. “Under the law, we would be forced to either remove features that keep teens’ experiences age-appropriate, or cut thousands of California teens off from family, friends, and their communities.”

Google and its subsidiary YouTube, which also sued in the Northern District, argued that personalization is what makes the platform’s vast library usable for children.

“Twenty million new videos are uploaded to YouTube every day. Without personalized feeds, millions of under-16 users will struggle to find the content that is right for them amongst billions of videos that are geared toward adults or users with different interests,” the complaint states. “To make matters worse, AB 1709 substitutes the State’s judgment for that of parents, prohibiting under-16 users from accessing personalized feeds even when their parents want them to be able to do so.”

YouTube says autoplay is already off by default for every user under 18. It also says that in defending SB 976, the state could not identify a single peer-reviewed study showing that personalization causes or is correlated with harm to minors.

“We believe parents are best positioned to make the right decisions for their families, which is why we offer a range of protections and tools that put parents in control,” Google spokesperson José Castañeda told the Post. “Overly broad laws like this actually break the systems we’ve built to help kids find high-quality, age-appropriate videos.”

TikTok, which is headquartered in Culver City and says it has more than 200 million US users, filed its suit in the Central District of California in Los Angeles.

“Ostensibly in the name of protecting minors, the Act prohibits TikTok from speaking to under-sixteen users through its current feeds,” the company wrote. “That ban applies even if TikTok obtains the onerous parental consent the State (unconstitutionally) required only two years ago. And the law gives the Attorney General discretion to designate new types of banned expression.”

TikTok argued that the law forces it to either give up curating feeds for teens under 16 or delete their accounts, calling it “a choice between the rock and the whirlpool.”

TikTok also claims the law is unconstitutionally vague, punishes honest mistakes and reaches beyond state lines because it follows California teens wherever they go, even to summer camp out of state.

“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,” a TikTok spokesperson told the Post.

The spokesperson added that TikTok teen accounts come with more than 50 preset safety, privacy and security settings, and that the company has disabled direct messaging for users under 16 since 2020.

“Beyond disregarding real progress in making teens safer online, this law limits free speech and takes away parents’ rights to determine what’s appropriate for their kids,” the spokesperson said.

Bonta’s office said it is reviewing the filings.

“Our office is committed to defending California’s commonsense laws to protect kids online,” the attorney general’s office told the Post.

When Newsom signed the bill, he called it part of the nation’s “strongest” package of social media and online safety laws for children, saying California “will not stand by while unregulated technology puts our children at risk.”

The Post contacted the governor’s office for comment.