# Social media ban under 16: Meta, Google and TikTok sue to stop California's AB 1709 > The law bars personalized feeds and autoplay for under-16s from January 1, with fines of up to $50,000 per child, and three platforms now want a federal court to block it first. - Publisher: NextDiff (https://nextdiff.com/) - Section: Policy - Author: NextDiff Editorial - Published: 2026-11-06T09:52:55.590Z - Updated: 2026-11-06T15:48:55.402Z - Canonical URL: https://nextdiff.com/posts/social-media-ban-under-16-california-ab-1709-lawsuit/ - Topics: privacy, google, meta, tiktok, social-media, age-verification ## In short Meta, Google and TikTok filed separate federal lawsuits on November 4 to block California's AB 1709, a law often described as a social media ban under 16. From January 1, 2027, it bars personalized feeds and autoplay for those users and requires age checks. Fines reach $50,000 per child. ## Key takeaways - Meta, Google and TikTok each sued California Attorney General Rob Bonta on November 4, arguing that AB 1709 violates the First Amendment and is preempted by Section 230. - AB 1709 is not a literal ban on accounts: under-16s can keep one only if it has no personalized feed or autoplay, and the platforms must otherwise delete it. - The age-check requirement reaches beyond children, because Meta's complaint says the features cannot be served to a user of any age without age verification. - The law takes effect on January 1, 2027 unless a court blocks it, and no ruling had been reported when this story was published. The three companies behind Instagram, YouTube and TikTok went to federal court this week to stop what many people are calling California's social media ban under 16. Before: California required parental consent for personalized feeds for minors. From January 1, 2027, under Assembly Bill 1709, a parent's yes no longer settles it, and platforms that keep those feeds and autoplay on for under-16s could owe up to [$50,000 per affected child](https://www.commonsensemedia.org/press-releases/common-sense-media-applauds-governor-newsoms-signature-of-ab-1709). Our 27-second version: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WBnFb5sOjJE Governor Gavin Newsom [signed the bill on September 10](https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/09/10/governor-newsom-signs-the-strongest-child-safety-chatbot-and-social-media-laws-in-the-nation/). Common Sense Media, which sponsored it, says it passed without a single no vote in either house. On November 4, [Meta](https://netchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/Meta-v.-Bonta-Complaint-AB1709.pdf), [Google and YouTube](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.483060/gov.uscourts.cand.483060.1.0.pdf) and [TikTok](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.1046598/gov.uscourts.cacd.1046598.1.0.pdf) each filed suit against Attorney General Rob Bonta, in San Francisco, San Jose and Los Angeles. ![First page of the complaint in Meta Platforms v. Bonta, filed 4 November 2026](/media/3947066e90b8493ea72a.jpg) *Image: Meta Platforms v. Bonta, N.D. Cal., case 3:26-cv-13201 (court filing)* ## Is California's law really a social media ban under 16? Not on paper, though the effect is disputed. According to a [summary by the law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth](https://www.hunton.com/privacy-and-cybersecurity-law-blog/california-enacts-covered-platform-age-restrictions-and-establishes-e-safety-advisory-commission), a platform may let an under-16 create or keep an account as long as that account has no "addictive feature". If it cannot offer that, it must delete the account and the personal data tied to it. The dispute is over how realistic that first option is. Meta's complaint says that because its feeds are built around recommendations and autoplay, the law would make it unlawful to serve minors at all unless it changes those practices. The Electronic Frontier Foundation [told TechCrunch](https://techcrunch.com/2026/11/05/meta-google-and-tiktok-sue-california-ag-over-teen-social-media-law/) it amounts to a functional ban. Supporters describe it differently: the accounts can stay, and the design features go. ## How does AB 1709 work? The law covers services that offer an addictive feature as a significant part of what they do. It defines three kinds of feature: - **Personalized feeds**, which the law calls addictive feeds: user-generated media recommended or prioritized using information tied to the user or their device. - **Autoplay**, where the next video starts on its own. - **Anything else the Attorney General adds** by regulation. Meta's complaint says none had been adopted when it filed. The exceptions matter just as much. Meta's complaint lists seven, including direct messages, search terms that are not stored against the user, and content the user explicitly asked for, provided nothing plays automatically. Meta reads that as possibly allowing a feed of accounts someone follows, but not a feed of a topic they like. It also says the law's scope can leave out video and music streaming services that show their own content. ![Diagram of what California AB 1709 switches off for under-16s and what stays allowed](/media/b7f0fb9e4cdb463c83c6.jpg) *Image: NextDiff. Sources: Hunton Andrews Kurth, Common Sense Media, Meta v. Bonta complaint* Penalties run up to $25,000 per affected minor for a negligent violation and up to $50,000 for a knowing one. Only the Attorney General or a local public prosecutor can sue, so parents cannot bring these cases themselves. ## Why are Meta, Google and TikTok suing? All three make the same two core arguments. The first is the First Amendment. Deciding what to show and in what order, they say, is editorial judgment, and Meta leans on the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Moody v. NetChoice. TikTok, in a statement reported by TechCrunch, compared recommendations to the curation done by book stores and TV networks. The second is Section 230, the federal law that shields platforms from liability for what users post. Google's complaint argues that recommendations and autoplay are publishing conduct, which Section 230 protects under Ninth Circuit precedent. Each company also has its own emphasis. Google says the law goes further than California's earlier SB 976, which only requires parental consent, and that it applies even when parents agree. It also says autoplay on YouTube is already off by default for everyone under 18. TikTok points to its Family Pairing controls. Meta says it would have to remove features that keep teen accounts age-appropriate, or cut those teens off. ![Meta press image introducing Instagram Teen Accounts](/media/abae586616004e87bdca.jpg) *Image: Meta (press release, Instagram Teen Accounts)* California's side is brief so far. Bonta's office says it is reviewing the filings and is committed to "defending California's commonsense laws to protect kids online". Newsom said at the signing that California would not stand by while unregulated technology puts children at risk. ## Why it matters beyond California The part most coverage skips is the age check, because it affects adults too. Meta's complaint says a covered service cannot provide these features to a user of any age without an age verification system. Where available, platforms must rely on age-bracket signals from app stores under the Digital Age Assurance Act, which also starts on January 1. The EFF's objection, made to TechCrunch, is that this forces platforms to collect more data about everyone. So builders should read this as more than a teen-safety story. If AB 1709 survives, any California-facing service with a recommended feed of user content has to answer two product questions: how it knows a user's age, and what a chronological or request-only version of its feed looks like. As we saw with [the data center ballot measures](/posts/data-center-ban-vote-ballot-measures-election-day/), state and local rules are increasingly where US tech policy gets set. California is not alone either. TechCrunch notes that Australia banned under-16s from social media in December 2025, while France's top court struck down a similar law. ## What happens next? The companies want an injunction before January 1. No ruling had been reported at the time of writing, and that date gives the courts less than two months. Precedent cuts both ways. Meta's complaint says parts of California's children's design code and of SB 976 have been blocked or held unconstitutional, but also that its challenge to SB 976's personalized-feed limits is still pending at the Ninth Circuit. That decision could shape this case. [NetChoice](https://netchoice.org/netchoice-raises-support-for-lawsuits-to-block-californias-unconstitutional-ab-1709/), a trade group that has sued over earlier California laws, backs the new suits. Nothing changes for California teens today. If you run a platform, plan for January 1 until a judge says otherwise. ## Questions readers ask ### Is there a social media ban under 16 in California? Not a literal one. AB 1709 bars personalized feeds and autoplay for under-16s from January 1, 2027. Accounts can stay only if they have none of those features. Meta and the EFF argue that it works as a ban in practice. ### Why are Meta, Google and TikTok suing California? They argue that AB 1709 violates the First Amendment by overriding their editorial choices about how to display content, and that Section 230 preempts it. Each filed a separate federal lawsuit against Attorney General Rob Bonta on November 4, 2026. ### What is the fine under AB 1709? Up to $25,000 per affected minor for a negligent violation and up to $50,000 per affected minor for a knowing violation. Only the Attorney General or a local public prosecutor can bring a case. ### When does California's AB 1709 take effect? January 1, 2027, unless a court blocks it first. No ruling had been reported when this story was published. ### Will adults have to verify their age under AB 1709? Meta's complaint says covered services cannot provide these features to a user of any age without an age verification system. Where available, they must rely on age-bracket signals from app stores under the Digital Age Assurance Act. ## Sources - [Meta Platforms v. Bonta — complaint, N.D. Cal., 3:26-cv-13201](https://netchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/Meta-v.-Bonta-Complaint-AB1709.pdf) - [Google and YouTube v. Bonta — complaint, N.D. Cal., 5:26-cv-13204](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.483060/gov.uscourts.cand.483060.1.0.pdf) - [TikTok v. Bonta — complaint, C.D. Cal., 2:26-cv-12965](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.1046598/gov.uscourts.cacd.1046598.1.0.pdf) - [Governor of California — Newsom signs child safety chatbot and social media laws](https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/09/10/governor-newsom-signs-the-strongest-child-safety-chatbot-and-social-media-laws-in-the-nation/) - [Hunton Andrews Kurth — California enacts covered platform age restrictions](https://www.hunton.com/privacy-and-cybersecurity-law-blog/california-enacts-covered-platform-age-restrictions-and-establishes-e-safety-advisory-commission) - [Common Sense Media — statement on the signing of AB 1709](https://www.commonsensemedia.org/press-releases/common-sense-media-applauds-governor-newsoms-signature-of-ab-1709) - [TechCrunch — Meta, Google, and TikTok sue California AG over teen social media law](https://techcrunch.com/2026/11/05/meta-google-and-tiktok-sue-california-ag-over-teen-social-media-law/) - [Tubefilter — Google, TikTok and Meta are suing California](https://www.tubefilter.com/2026/11/05/google-meta-tiktok-california-lawsuit-ab-1709/) - [Mediaweek — Google, Meta and TikTok fight California's under-16s rules](https://www.mediaweek.com.au/google-meta-and-tiktok-fight-california-s-under-16s-rules) - [NetChoice — statement on the AB 1709 lawsuits](https://netchoice.org/netchoice-raises-support-for-lawsuits-to-block-californias-unconstitutional-ab-1709/)