Meta, Google and TikTok sue to block California's law on teen social media feeds

Many parents know the moment: a teenager meant to watch one video, and an hour later the next one is still starting by itself. In September, California decided that, for children under 16, that should stop. Now three of the world’s biggest apps have gone to court to stop the law instead.

On Wednesday, 4 November, Meta, Google with its YouTube service, and TikTok each filed a separate lawsuit to block AB 1709, Reuters and TechCrunch reported. It is the California social media law that bans autoplay and personalised feeds for users under 16. The only defendant is California’s Attorney General, Rob Bonta, whose office enforces the law. The fight matters well beyond one state, because governments around the world are now asking the same question: who decides what a teenager’s feed looks like?

What the California social media law asks of apps

Governor Gavin Newsom signed the law on 10 September 2026, alongside other child-safety bills. His office said it stops social media companies from giving users under 16 “addictive features such as autoplay and algorithmic feeds”. At the signing, Newsom said California “will not stand by while unregulated technology puts our children at risk”.

According to the law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth, platforms must check a user’s age before turning those features on. Teens under 16 can keep their accounts, but only without the features, and existing under-16 accounts that have them must be deleted. Fines reach US$25,000 per affected child for a careless breach and US$50,000 for a knowing one. Only the Attorney General or local prosecutors can sue. The law, written by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal, also creates a seven-member e-Safety Advisory Commission, and it is due to start in early 2027.

Three companies, one free-speech argument

Google filed in federal court in San Jose and Meta in San Francisco; TikTok filed in Los Angeles. All three argue that the law breaks the First Amendment and is overridden by Section 230, the federal law that shields platforms. Meta’s filing says “the state cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, override Meta’s editorial judgments”, Reuters reported.

Google told TechCrunch that YouTube already turns autoplay off for minors by default and lets parents switch off Shorts, adding that “overly broad laws like this actually break the systems we’ve built”. TikTok called the law a “blatantly unconstitutional restriction on free expression”, also according to TechCrunch. The Attorney General’s office said it is reviewing the filings and is committed to defending California’s laws.

The companies are not alone. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital-rights group, called the law a privacy and free-speech “nightmare”. It warned that age checks would collect more data from everyone, not just teens. We don’t yet know whether the companies have asked a judge for a quick pause, or when the first hearing will be.

If you’re a parent of a teen in California

For now, nothing changes on your child’s phone. If the law survives, from 2027 your teenager may be asked to prove their age, and under-16s would see feeds without autoplay or history-based picks. Families anywhere can already switch off autoplay and use each app’s parental tools today, without waiting for a judge.

Why both sides have a fair point

The worry behind this California social media law is real. In August, Meta agreed to pay up to US$18 billion and limit teen use under deals with nearly all US states, Reuters reported. Our Meta Q3 2026 earnings story covers the cost. Australia’s under-16 ban took effect in December 2025. Lawmakers are responding to families who feel outmatched by feeds built to keep people watching.

The companies’ point is serious too. In their view, a feed is a set of editorial choices about what to show, and the state should not make those choices for them. Age checks also carry a cost: more personal data, held by more companies, for every user.

On balance, our reading is that courts may keep the goal and trim the method. A rule aimed at autoplay is easier to defend than one that requires age checks for everyone. The likelier outcome is a narrower law, not no law at all.

Until a judge rules on whether AB 1709 can start on time, every teenager’s feed in California stays exactly as it is. That ruling is the one to watch.