Google, Meta and TikTok have each gone to court to stop a California law that would change how their apps work for anyone under 16, and the clock is short: TechCrunch reports the law is slated to take effect at the start of the new year.
The three lawsuits are separate, but they share a defendant and a goal. Tubefilter reports that all three name California Attorney General Rob Bonta and ask the court for an injunction stopping him from enforcing the law against them. We couldn't check the court filings directly, so everything below about their contents is attributed to the outlets that reported them.
What the law does
The law is Assembly Bill 1709, which Governor Gavin Newsom signed in September. According to TechCrunch, it bars social platforms from offering autoplay videos and personalized feeds to users under 16, and requires platforms to delete those users' accounts if they don't turn the features off. Tubefilter's list of the banned features is recommendation algorithms, infinite scroll and video autoplay.
The penalties are what give it teeth. TechCrunch reports that platforms that don't comply could be liable for fines of up to $50,000 per affected user under 16.
Tubefilter's reading is that, because of how the three companies have designed their platforms, the law effectively bans under-16s from having accounts at all on YouTube, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook. Newsom's framing when he signed it, as quoted by Tubefilter, was: "We want our children–and every California kid–to grow up in a world where technology supports their wellbeing, rather than exploits their vulnerabilities."
What the companies argue
TechCrunch reports that Meta claims AB 1709 violates the First Amendment by overriding its editorial decisions about how content is displayed, and that Section 230 preempts the law, with TikTok and Google making similar arguments. Tubefilter likewise reports that the suits claim violations of Section 230 and First Amendment protections.
Meta's filing, quoted by TechCrunch, says that because the company's feeds use personalized recommendations and autoplay, the Act "would make it unlawful for Meta to disseminate speech to minors altogether, and would require Meta to delete minors' accounts, unless it changes these practices." A Meta spokesperson, quoted by Tubefilter from Courthouse News, said the law violates the First Amendment "by letting the government dictate how ideas are organized, displayed or shared with Californians."
A TikTok spokesperson called the law "a blatantly unconstitutional restriction on free expression" in a statement quoted by both outlets. Google's line leans on parents. "We believe parents are best positioned to make the right decisions for their families," a spokesperson said, according to TechCrunch, adding in comments also carried by Tubefilter that "overly broad laws like this actually break the systems we've built to help kids find high-quality, age-appropriate videos." TechCrunch also notes Google's point that autoplay on YouTube is off by default for minors and that parents can turn off their teens' access to Shorts.
California and the critics
Bonta's office says it is reviewing the filings. A representative said the attorney general is committed to "defending California's commonsense laws to protect kids online," TechCrunch reports.
The companies aren't the law's only critics. TechCrunch quotes Rindala Alajaji, associate director of state affairs at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who said in a press briefing that AB 1709 "compels platforms to collect even more information from every user, invading everyone's privacy and frustrating our ability to remain anonymous online."
TechCrunch places the law in a wider trend: Australia became the first country to ban social media for under-16s altogether in December 2025, while France passed a similar law that its top court struck down.
No court has ruled on any of this yet. The next thing to watch is whether a judge grants the injunctions the companies are asking for before the law's start date.
Mason's take: Strip out the constitutional language and this is a fight over the recommendation feed itself, the thing that decides what these apps are. I'd expect the injunction question to matter more in the short term than the final ruling, because that's what decides whether anyone's feed actually changes in January. If the law does survive, my guess is that creators with young audiences will feel it quickly.
Reporting notes
