Meta, Google and TikTok sue California AG over law restricting social media features for users under 16 years old
Meta, Google and TikTok are mounting a legal challenge against California’s latest attempt to curb social media use among teenagers, arguing new restrictions on platform features could violate constitutional rights and interfere with how online content is delivered.
The companies have filed lawsuits against California Attorney General Rob Bonta over AB 1709, legislation signed by Governor Gavin Newsom that is scheduled to take effect on January 1.
The legislation targets features considered potentially addictive for younger audiences, including autoplay videos and personalised content feeds.
Platforms that fail to disable the restricted features for users under 16 could face penalties of up to $50,000 per affected user, alongside requirements to delete accounts where necessary.
Meta argues the legislation crosses constitutional boundaries by restricting how platforms organise and recommend content.
The company maintains that content curation is a form of protected expression under the First Amendment, while also raising questions around the protections provided by Section 230.
TikTok has also challenged the legislation, arguing that regulating how platforms recommend and present content amounts to an unconstitutional restriction.
Its legal position draws comparisons with traditional media businesses, including booksellers, which also make decisions about how audiences discover content.
Google has raised similar concerns, although it maintains that autoplay is already disabled by default for younger users and that parental controls provide additional safeguards.
The legal battle comes as governments worldwide increase pressure on technology companies to take greater responsibility for the impact of social media on children and teenagers.
However, the proposed restrictions have also attracted criticism from digital rights advocates, who warn that age verification requirements could create new privacy risks by encouraging platforms to collect more personal information.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Alajaji has questioned whether the legislation could lead to greater online surveillance and give technology companies even more control over users’ digital identities.
There are also concerns that restricting access to social platforms could have unintended consequences for young people who rely on these services to participate in political discussion, organise activism and engage with wider communities.
California’s approach reflects a broader international debate over how far governments should go in regulating children’s access to digital platforms. Australia introduced a social media minimum-age restriction for under-16s in 2025, while France has pursued similar measures amid ongoing debate over privacy, parental authority and freedom of expression.
Technology companies argue that governments should preserve a greater role for parents in determining how teenagers use online services, rather than imposing broad restrictions on platform functionality.
California’s Attorney General’s office says it is reviewing the legal challenges and remains committed to defending legislation designed to protect children online.
The court proceedings could become an important test of how governments balance child safety, digital privacy and the constitutional rights of technology companies as regulation of social media continues to expand.
