Google, TikTok And Meta Sue To Block California’s Social Media Law That Restricts Addictive Features For Children

Three tech giants — Google, Meta and TikTok — sued the state of California over a recently passed law designed to restrict social media platforms from offering “addictive” features to children under 16. In its lawsuit, filed on Wednesday, Google claimed that the law would ban features like YouTube‘s recommendation system and autoplay feature, even though it works “the way television always has—when one program ends, the next begins.” It contended that the new law is preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and violates the First Amendment, both on the part of YouTube and its users. Google’s legal team wrote in the filing, “Those provisions burden YouTube’s First Amendment right to organize and display the third-party content on its platform in a curated compilation that aligns with YouTube’s value-laden objectives, such as promoting novelty and diversity and delivering age-appropriate content to minors in different age groups. And they infringe the right of YouTube’s under-16 users to access compilations of content that are best suited to their interests, age group, and developmental needs.” Watch on Deadline Read YouTube’s lawsuit challenging a California social media law. In its lawsuit, TikTok argued that the law — the Digital Age Assurance Act, or AB 1709, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September — would prohibit its “For You” feature for children, something that it says is editorial discretion protected by the First Amendment. It also noted that the law goes even further than a similar bill that was passed in 2024 and also is being challenged in court. The new law would restrict the offering of addictive features, regardless of whether parental consent is obtained, TikTok’s legal team noted. “By prohibiting TikTok from delivering to under-sixteen users the curated compilations of videos it creates for them, and by dictating how TikTok may present those videos, the Act runs headlong into the First Amendment,” the company’s legal team wrote. They added, “TikTok shares the desire to protect teens on its platform, but the extreme way the Legislature has gone about it in the Act is not consistent with the First Amendment.” In its lawsuit, Meta’s legal team wrote that the law would prohibit personalized feeds and autoplay to minors. “As Supreme Court precedent confirms, the feeds of third-party content that Meta makes available on its Facebook, Instagram, and Threads services ‘receive First Amendment protection’ because they are the product of Meta’s ‘expressive choices’ in deciding which kinds of user-generated ‘content [its] feeds will display, or how the display will be ordered and organized,'” Meta’s legal team wrote. The companies are seeking a court order to block the implementation of the law, which is scheduled to go into effect January 1. A spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta said, “We are reviewing the filing. Our office is committed to defending California’s common sense laws to protect kids online.” Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal, a Democrat from Long Beach who introduced AB 1709, said in a statement that the lawsuit “comes straight out of Meta’s playbook.” “Let’s take stock of where we are: our courts have found platforms liable for addicting kids, our Legislature acts unanimously to implement sensible guardrails to fix it, and Meta would rather sue the state than lean into what California families overwhelmingly want,” he said. “It’s just a continuation of Meta’s fight to addict children for profit. As disappointing as this development is, I do trust the courts will put children’s safety over corporate greed.” Earlier this year, a jury in Los Angeles found Meta and YouTube liable for the social media addiction of the plaintiff when she was a child. Another jury in New Mexico found that Meta violated consumer protection laws and was negligent in protecting minors from predators on its platforms. In the latter case, the jury determined penalties of $375 million.