Google, Meta and TikTok Sue to Block California’s Kids’ Law

Google, Meta and TikTok sued California on Thursday to block a law restricting addictive social-media features for children.

By Career Ahead AI · United States — AI-assisted, fact-verified against cited sources. Readers should verify key facts.

The companies filed separate cases in three California cities

The cases name California Attorney General Rob Bonta as the defendant and were filed in separate federal courts. Google filed in San Jose, Meta in San Francisco, and TikTok in Los Angeles. The filings mark the first major challenges to the law. Each company brought its own case rather than joining a single lawsuit.^¹²³

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1709 on 10 September. The law takes effect on 1 January 2027, unless a judge voids it or puts it on hold. That timing gives the courts a chance to consider the companies’ challenges before the law’s start date. The lawsuits seek to block the law from taking effect.^¹²³

The law targets features and accounts used by minors

AB 1709 bars platforms from offering autoplay videos and personalized feeds to users under 16. It also requires platforms to delete those users’ accounts if they do not turn off the restricted features. The law describes features such as personalized recommendations and autoplay as potentially psychologically exploitative and capable of encouraging compulsive use.^¹²³

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1709 on 10 September.

Platforms that fail to comply could face fines of up to $50,000 per affected user under 16. The companies argue that the restrictions cross legal boundaries: they say the law violates their free-speech rights and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 is a federal law that shields technology companies from liability for content posted by users.^¹²³

You may also like

Featured

Karnataka’s Sandbox Reset: Rs 570 Crore and a State as First Customer

Karnataka is amending its dormant Innovation Authority sandbox while rolling out a Rs 570.675 crore startup policy with a Rs 75 crore Beyond Bengaluru fund.

Read More →

The companies frame the rules as limits on editorial choices

Meta argues that AB 1709 violates the First Amendment by overriding its editorial decisions about how to display content, and that Section 230 preempts the law. Edward Patterson, a Meta spokesman, said the law would let the government “dictate how ideas are organized, displayed or shared with Californians.” That argument puts the platforms’ control over how feeds present content at the centre of the dispute.^¹²

A TikTok spokesperson called AB 1709 “a blatantly unconstitutional restriction on free expression.” The spokesperson said the law erodes the practice of curating content based on user preferences, which the statement compared with practices used by book stores, TV networks and streaming services. TikTok did not immediately respond to a separate request for comment.^¹²

Google said some protections already apply on YouTube: videos do not automatically play on children’s accounts, and parents can disable the Shorts feed. José Castañeda, a Google spokesman, said parents are “best positioned to make the right decisions for their families” and that the company offers tools that put parents in control. Google’s position points to existing settings as an alternative way to manage young users’ access.^¹²³

The lawsuits arrive amid wider disputes over children’s safety online

Brooke Istook, chief executive of the Heat Initiative, an advocacy organization focused on tech accountability, said the companies’ business models rely on keeping children and teenagers scrolling. She criticized their free-speech argument, saying they were presenting the protection of those features as a matter of speech. Her statement reflects the opposing view that the disputed design features can drive prolonged use.^¹³

José Castañeda, a Google spokesman, said parents are “best positioned to make the right decisions for their families” and that the company offers tools that put parents in control.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation raised a different concern: its Associate Director of State Affairs, Rindala Alajaji, said the law compels platforms to collect more information from every user, affecting privacy and online anonymity. Alajaji also cited teenagers’ digital activism, including the Parkland shooting survivors’ March for Our Lives and climate activist Greta Thunberg’s global reach, as examples of social media’s role in enabling advocacy.^¹²³

You may also like

Government & Policy

Suffield Academy Places Its Head on Leave Amid IRS Investigation

The academy retained outside counsel to examine leadership and finances.

Read More →

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has also called the law “a massive privacy and free speech nightmare.” The legal fight comes as technology companies face other claims tied to children’s safety. Meta agreed to pay a settlement of up to $18 billion to resolve claims brought by 29 U.S. states, while the companies and Snap face thousands of lawsuits alleging that they sought to addict children and contributed to a mental health crisis.^¹²³

Other countries have taken different approaches to restrictions on young users. Australia became the first country to ban social media for users under 16 altogether in December 2025. France passed a similar law, but its top court struck it down over concerns about free-expression rights. Those examples leave California’s law facing a distinct test: whether a court allows a feature-based restriction to take effect.^¹²³

The stakes for your feed

If you work in product design, content moderation, or trust and safety at a platform, this law changes the baseline for what features you can build for users under 16. Autoplay and personalized feeds are now legally contested, with fines up to $50,000 per affected user. Before you ship a recommendation engine or autoplay default, check the age of your audience and the state where they live. A feature that works in one jurisdiction may carry legal risk in California.^¹²³

The stakes for your feed If you work in product design, content moderation, or trust and safety at a platform, this law changes the baseline for what features you can build for users under 16.

For policy and legal teams, the fight is about Section 230 and the First Amendment. The companies argue the law dictates how ideas are organized, which is a direct challenge to editorial control. If you work in platform policy, expect more state-level laws that target specific features rather than content. Plan for compliance costs tied to deleting accounts and collecting more user data, as the EFF warns. The outcome of this case sets a precedent for how far states can go in regulating product design.^¹²³

Written by Career Ahead AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify key facts. Report errors to support@careeraheadonline.com

You may also like

Government & Policy

Canada Keeps International Student Target Through 2029

The broader temporary-resident plan includes workers, while education groups say predictable policy supports institutional planning and confidence.

Read More →