Meta, Google and TikTok Sue California Over Child-Safety Law AB 1709

Three of the world's largest social media companies sued California on Wednesday over Assembly Bill 1709, a law that bars platforms from using addictive features to target users under 16. Meta, Google and TikTok filed separate federal complaints seeking an injunction against enforcement of the statute, which Governor Gavin Newsom signed on September 10.

All three lawsuits name California Attorney General Rob Bonta as defendant. Meta and Google filed in the Northern District of California; TikTok filed in the Central District. Each complaint asks the court to block Bonta from enforcing AB 1709.

What does the new law actually do?

Assembly Bill 1709 targets what the legislature calls "addictive features." The law covers algorithmic content recommendations, infinite scroll and autoplay. It prohibits social media platforms that use addictive feeds from allowing children under 16 to hold accounts at all. The statute also creates an e-Safety Advisory Commission operating under the state attorney general.

The companies raise two distinct legal theories. First, they argue the law violates the First Amendment by restricting the content they may show users under 16. Second, they claim Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act preempts the statute. That provision shields online businesses and social media platforms from liability for content posted by third parties.

What did the companies argue?

Meta's complaint pulls no punches. "California Assembly Bill 1709 is California's latest attempt to flout that fundamental principle and appoint the state as the editor, curator, and controller of online speech," the company said in its filing.

Meta contends the law tramples its editorial judgment. Its choices about which third-party content to display are protected by the First Amendment, the company argues. Meta also claims the contents of personalized feeds constitute protected third-party speech, and that a ban on autoplay would infringe its right to engage in the "free and unhampered distribution of" speech.

"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 said. "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."

TikTok's complaint takes a narrower practical tack. The company claims AB 1709 would prevent it entirely from speaking to users under 16 through its current product. The platform could engage California users between 13 and 16 only if it "design[ed] a fundamentally different offering," according to the filing.

"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 said.

TikTok emphasized its existing safeguards. The spokesperson cited "teen accounts" with "more than 50 preset safety, privacy and security settings" and the platform's "Family Pairing" feature. "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," they said.

Google, the parent company of YouTube, framed its suit around parental control. The company argues YouTube's personalized recommendations ensure minors receive relevant and appropriate content. Autoplay, Google contends, helps users consume videos designed to be viewed "in a sequence."

"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," a Google spokesperson said. "Overly broad laws like this actually break the systems we've built to help kids find high quality, age-appropriate videos."

How did California respond?

A representative for the attorney general's office said the office is reviewing the lawsuits and remains "committed to defending California's commonsense laws to protect kids online."

Is this part of a broader fight?

Yes. The same three companies are separately challenging Senate Bill 976, California's Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act. That statute requires platforms to obtain verified parental consent before showing minors addictive feeds and to offer settings letting parents limit them.

The platforms have already lost early rounds in that dispute. In August, U.S. District Judge Edward Davila, an Obama appointee, denied the companies' request for a preliminary injunction against the statute's enforcement. Weeks later, he rejected their bid to keep the law from operating while they pursue review in the Ninth Circuit.

For practitioners, the new complaints signal a sustained constitutional showdown over state power to regulate platform design — not just content — with First Amendment editorial-discretion claims and Section 230 preemption at the center of each filing.