Google, Meta, and TikTok are taking California to court over a new law designed to limit potentially addictive social media features for children, arguing that the legislation violates constitutional free speech protections and gives the state too much control over how platforms present content.

The three technology companies filed separate lawsuits against California on Wednesday, November 4, challenging Assembly Bill 1709 (AB 1709), which targets features that lawmakers believe can encourage compulsive social media use among minors. The legal challenge puts some of the biggest names in the social media industry on a collision course with California’s efforts to strengthen online protections for children.

The legislation applies to children under 16 and restricts platforms from providing certain features that could encourage excessive engagement. Among the features specifically targeted are personalized content recommendations and autoplay, which automatically plays the next video without requiring users to make another selection.

Under the law, platforms must also delete accounts belonging to children that use these restricted features. The legislation is intended to address concerns about how social media services design their experiences to keep younger audiences engaged.

Why Google, Meta, and TikTok are challenging the law

The companies argue that California’s restrictions interfere with their editorial decisions and how they organize and recommend content to users.

Google, which owns YouTube, contends that the legislation is overly broad and could undermine systems designed to help younger viewers find appropriate videos. Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda argued that parents, rather than the government, should be best positioned to make decisions about what their children watch.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, is also challenging the state’s authority to dictate how its platforms curate and display content. In its lawsuit, the company argued that California is interfering with its editorial judgments while leaving children free to spend unlimited time on other online platforms offering similar services.

TikTok has raised its own First Amendment objections, arguing that constitutionally protected speech cannot be restricted simply because lawmakers consider certain ideas or images unsuitable for younger audiences.

All three companies also argue that the legislation conflicts with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal provision that generally protects online platforms from liability for content posted by their users.

The lawsuits were filed in separate California federal courts. Google filed its challenge in San Jose, Meta brought its case in San Francisco, and TikTok filed in Los Angeles. California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office is the defendant in the cases.

California says the law is about protecting children online

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1709 into law on September 10, arguing that children’s safety must remain central to discussions about technology.

The state’s position is that social media companies should not be allowed to use engagement-driven features in ways that could put younger users at risk. The legislation reflects growing concern among lawmakers and parents about the relationship between platform design, compulsive use, and children’s well-being.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office said it was reviewing the lawsuits and remained committed to defending the state’s online child protection measures.

The law is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2027. However, its implementation could be delayed or blocked if the courts rule against the state or issue an order preventing enforcement while the legal challenges proceed.

The legal battle comes amid wider scrutiny of social media platforms

The challenge is arriving at a time when major social media companies are facing increasing legal and regulatory pressure over their impact on younger users.

Meta, in particular, has faced allegations that its platforms contribute to mental health problems among teenagers. The company has introduced additional safety features designed to give parents more oversight of their children’s accounts, presenting these measures as an alternative to broader restrictions on social media access.

The broader debate is not limited to California. Governments around the world are considering restrictions on children’s access to social media, with Australia having introduced a ban on social media accounts for children under 16.

Meanwhile, technology companies continue to face thousands of lawsuits from individuals, school districts, municipalities, and government entities alleging that their platforms were designed to encourage addictive behavior and contributed to mental health problems among young people.

The California lawsuits could become an important test of how far state governments can go in regulating the design of social media platforms when those restrictions intersect with constitutional protections for speech and the companies’ ability to curate content.

For now, the January 2027 implementation date remains on the calendar, but the outcome of the legal challenges could determine whether California gets to enforce the restrictions as planned.