California has taken a bold step to protect young people online, but the state's new law is now at the center of a legal showdown. Google, Meta, and TikTok have filed separate federal lawsuits to block Assembly Bill 1709, which bans features like infinite scrolling, autoplay, and personalized algorithmic recommendations for users under 16. The filings, submitted in San Jose, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, name California Attorney General Rob Bonta as the defendant.
Governor Gavin Newsom signed the legislation on September 10, with enforcement set to begin January 1, 2027, unless a court intervenes. The law is part of a broader effort to address growing concerns about the impact of social media on teen mental health. But tech companies argue that the state is overstepping its bounds, violating First Amendment protections and overriding parental authority.
Tech industry fights back
The lawsuits claim that California's rules break existing parental controls and alter standard features on platforms like YouTube. Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said the state mandates would disrupt the tools parents already use to manage their kids' online activity. The companies also argue that algorithmic curation is a form of protected speech, a position that has been rejected in some federal courts but remains a key part of their defense.
Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook, highlighted its voluntary measures, such as capping teen usage at two hours daily when parents authorize it. The company argues that state intervention is unnecessary and could undermine these efforts. Meanwhile, TikTok has not publicly commented on the lawsuits, but its filing signals a unified industry stance against the law.
The legal battle is not just about California. Tech platforms are already facing thousands of lawsuits from school districts across the country over youth mental health. A ruling in California could set a precedent for how states regulate social media design nationwide.
Privacy concerns and civil liberties
While the law aims to protect minors, some privacy advocates worry about unintended consequences. The Electronic Frontier Foundation warns that enforcing age-based restrictions could require invasive identity checks for all internet users in the state. Civil rights groups have also raised concerns about data collection, arguing that mandatory age verification could expose sensitive information.
On the other side, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) supports the law, noting that recent court rulings have found that addictive design features are not protected speech. EPIC's statement emphasizes that interactive features designed to maximize screen time fall outside constitutional guarantees.
The California Department of Justice has pledged to defend the law, with a spokesperson saying, "The attorney general evaluates each lawsuit thoroughly and remains fully committed to defending state laws designed to protect children from online harms."
This legal fight comes amid other California policy debates, such as the state's wealth tax struggles and housing pressures on seniors. For Latino families, many of whom rely on social media to stay connected across borders, the outcome could affect how their children experience the digital world.
As the lawsuits move forward, the tech industry is also challenging a 2024 parental consent rule, consolidating a broader constitutional dispute. The decisions from federal courts in California will likely influence how other states approach youth online safety, making this a pivotal moment for digital regulation.
For now, the scrolling law battle continues, with both sides digging in. The tech giants see this as a fight for free expression and innovation, while advocates see it as a necessary step to protect vulnerable users. The coming months will reveal whether California's crackdown on infinite scrolling survives the legal challenge.
