Three of the largest social media and technology companies are taking California to court over a new law designed to protect children online. TikTok Inc., Meta Platforms Inc. and Google LLC each filed their own federal lawsuit in California this week, asking a judge to stop the measure before it takes effect.
The law, Assembly Bill 1709, is described as the first of its kind in the nation and is scheduled to become enforceable on January 1, 2027. According to a report by San Jose Inside, the companies are seeking an injunction that would prevent the state from enforcing it while the legal challenges proceed.
What Assembly Bill 1709 Requires
Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1709 in September. The bipartisan legislation targets design features of social media that the state considers psychologically exploitative for young users.
Among its central provisions, the law bars platforms from serving personalized recommendations and autoplay features to children under 16. It also prohibits offering addictive features to that age group more broadly.
The measure reaches beyond traditional social feeds. It adds safeguards for companion chatbots, reflecting growing concern about how minors interact with artificial intelligence, and it expands privacy protections for children.
The Companies' Legal Arguments
Although filed separately, the three lawsuits make overlapping claims. Each argues that the law's restrictions violate the First Amendment's free speech protections and conflict with Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act.
Section 230 has long been used to shield online platforms from liability for content posted by users, and it has been central to many legal battles over how tech companies moderate and present material.
Meta framed its case around the idea that decisions about what content to show users are a form of protected expression. "The state cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, override Meta's editorial judgments," the company wrote in its complaint. Google and TikTok advanced similar reasoning.
Support From Digital Rights Advocates
The companies are not alone in opposing the law. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit focused on digital civil liberties, has criticized AB 1709 as a serious threat to both privacy and free speech.
The organization urged Newsom to veto the bill before he signed it, but that effort did not succeed. Critics more broadly have raised concerns that restrictions of this kind could limit lawful expression online.
The Governor's Case for the Law
Newsom has presented the law as a necessary update to child protections in an era of fast-moving technology. In his signing statement, he said safety should be at the center of discussions about technology and that protections need to keep pace with innovation.
He also argued that responsibility should be built into product design from the start, rather than added after problems emerge, and said California would not stand by while unregulated technology puts children at risk.
A Wider Wave of Legal Pressure
The new lawsuits arrive as the three companies are already defending against thousands of legal actions brought by school districts, governments, cities and individuals over the effects of their platforms.
Meta recently agreed to pay up to $18 billion to resolve a high-profile case involving children's privacy and social media addiction. As part of that settlement, the company said it would change its platforms to make them less addictive for young users, while continuing to deny any wrongdoing.
What the Fight Means for the Tech Industry
The outcome of these cases could shape how far states can go in regulating the design of digital products used by minors. A ruling for the companies would reinforce free speech and Section 230 defenses against such laws, while a ruling for California could encourage other states to adopt similar rules.
For founders building consumer apps, social platforms or AI chatbots, the dispute is a signal that youth safety is becoming a design requirement rather than an afterthought. Companies serving younger audiences may need to plan for recommendation, autoplay and chatbot restrictions regardless of how this particular case is decided.
Source: San Jose Inside
