Three of the largest social media operators are taking California to court. Google, Meta and TikTok each filed their own lawsuit on Wednesday seeking to prevent the state from putting into effect a law aimed at curbing addictive design features for young users.
The companies contend that the measure, Assembly Bill 1709, infringes on their constitutional free speech rights and conflicts with Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. According to a report by TheWrap, which obtained the court documents, the platforms argue those protections cover how they choose to arrange, recommend and display content created by others.
What California's Assembly Bill 1709 Requires
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 1709 into law in September. It targets three design features in particular: personalized feeds, endless scrolling and autoplay, all of which would be off limits for users younger than 16.
The law also carries a significant compliance obligation. Platforms that serve these features to under-16 users would be required to delete those accounts along with the personal information tied to them.
Three Separate Suits in Three Federal Courts
Rather than joining forces in a single case, the companies filed individually in federal courts in San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Jose. Each suit names California Attorney General Rob Bonta as the defendant.
Bonta's office has said it is reviewing the filings. It also stated that it remains committed to defending the state's laws designed to protect children online.
Google Argues YouTube Users Would Lose Relevant Content
Google's complaint focuses heavily on YouTube. The company argues that without personalized feeds, younger viewers would no longer receive a selection of videos matched to their interests, preferences and stage of development.
In Google's telling, removing personalization would make it harder for teens to find useful material on the platform. The suit warns that such content could end up lost among a flood of videos meant for audiences of other ages or with different tastes.
TikTok Compares Curation to Bookstores and Broadcasters
TikTok took a similarly forceful position, describing the law as a "blatantly unconstitutional restriction on free expression" in its filing.
The company framed algorithmic curation as a long-established and legally protected practice. It pointed out that bookstores, television networks and streaming services all organize what they offer around audience preferences, and argued that social platforms should be treated the same way.
Legal Pressure Mounting on Several Fronts
The new lawsuits arrive as the companies behind these platforms contend with a growing wave of litigation over social media addiction. In August, Meta agreed to an $18 billion settlement to end a trial over teen social media addiction involving claims brought by nearly every state.
TikTok has faced similar scrutiny. In September, it settled with Alabama for at least $100 million over its addictive features.
The courts have not always sided with the industry in California. In August, a judge rejected a preliminary injunction request from TikTok, Meta, YouTube and Google that sought to stop the state from enforcing a separate social media safety law.
What the Fight Means for Platforms and Product Builders
The outcome of these cases could shape how far states can go in regulating the design of digital products, not just the content on them. Features like recommendation algorithms and autoplay sit at the core of how many consumer apps keep users engaged.
For founders building social, video or community products, the dispute is a signal that engagement mechanics aimed at younger users are drawing sustained legal and political attention. Whether courts treat curation as protected expression or as a regulable design choice will likely influence product decisions well beyond California.
Source: TheWrap
