Google, Meta, and TikTok challenge California's new child safety law in federal court

Social media giants Google, Meta, and TikTok filed separate lawsuits on Wednesday to block a California law that limits how platforms interact with children. The new rule, Assembly Bill 1709, prevents social media sites from using features such as autoplay and recommended content feeds for users younger than 16. The companies argue that these design choices are protected forms of speech and that the state is overstepping its authority.

The law was introduced by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal, a Democrat from Long Beach. He cited rising rates of anxiety and depression among young people who grew up with constant access to digital screens. Lowenthal described the addictive nature of features like autoplay as harmful to developing brains. He stated that these features are not appropriate for children and that the bill aims to provide stronger safeguards for social media users.

The legal challenges mark a continued pattern of conflict between the state and the tech industry. California and other states previously secured massive civil settlements against these companies. Those settlements were based on allegations that the platforms designed harmful and addictive features to hook children while misleading the public about the risks. Despite these financial penalties, the industry continues to use federal courts to block state-level regulatory efforts.

Meta Platforms, Google, and YouTube filed their complaints in the Northern District of California. TikTok filed its suit in the Central District of California. Attorneys for Meta, which owns Instagram, Facebook, and Threads, wrote that the state's attempt to act as an editor of online speech violates the U.S. Constitution. They argued the law overrides Meta's editorial judgment regarding how to display billions of third-party posts.

TikTok's lawsuit highlights a specific conflict with a similar law, Senate Bill 976. That earlier bill, known as the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, allowed parents to consent to addictive features for minors. TikTok argues that Assembly Bill 1709 effectively overrides that parental consent mechanism. The company stated that a parent who sets screen limits and enables restricted modes should still have the ability to choose a personalized feed for their child.

In their filing, TikTok attorneys noted that the new law prevents parents from making informed choices about their children's online expression. They described a scenario where a mother links her account to her 15-year-old daughter's account and sets a 30-minute daily limit. Under the new rule, that parent would lack the legal ability to allow a personalized feed, according to the company's legal team.

A representative for Attorney General Rob Bonta said his office is reviewing the litigation. The tech industry groups initially opposed Lowenthal's bill, arguing it would hamper users' ability to connect with family and friends. The legal fight over these features continues as both bills are set to take effect on January 1.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to hear arguments in the case against Senate Bill 976 next spring. That earlier case also challenges the state's authority to restrict addictive feeds for minors. The outcome of that appeal may influence how courts view the new challenges against Assembly Bill 1709.