Google, Meta and TikTok sued California on Nov. 5, 2026 to block AB 1709. Here is what the under-16 addictive-features law does, the penalties, and what parents should know before Jan. 1, 2027.
Google, Meta and TikTok sued California on Nov. 5, 2026 to block AB 1709. Here is what the under-16 addictive-features law does, the penalties, and what parents should know before Jan. 1, 2027.
Kara
Google, Meta and TikTok each sued California on Wednesday, November 5, 2026, asking federal courts to block a new state law that limits “addictive” social media features for people under 16. The law, Assembly Bill 1709, takes effect on January 1, 2027 unless a judge puts it on hold. Below is what the statute actually requires, why the companies say it is unconstitutional, and what it could mean for parents and teens in California.
Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1709 on September 10, 2026. It adds new rules to California’s Business and Professions Code for “covered platforms” — roughly, websites and apps that make an addictive feed a significant part of the service.
Under the law, a covered platform may not provide an “addictive feature” to a user under 16. The statute defines addictive features to include an addictive feed, autoplay, and any other feature the attorney general later designates by regulation. Platforms must also take reasonable steps — including age verification under California’s Digital Age Assurance Act — to keep those features away from younger users.
Importantly, AB 1709 is not a blanket ban on under-16 accounts. The text expressly lets a platform keep an under-16 account open if that user is not given any addictive feature. If a platform keeps offering addictive features to someone under 16, it must delete that account and the personal information tied to it.
Only the California attorney general or a local public prosecutor can sue to enforce the law. There is no private right of action for parents or teens. Civil penalties run up to $50,000 per affected minor for a knowing violation and up to $25,000 per affected minor for a negligent one. Courts are directed to weigh the company’s size, how long the violation lasted, and whether it made good-faith efforts to comply.
According to TechCrunch, The Guardian and Courthouse News, the three companies filed separate federal lawsuits against Attorney General Rob Bonta:
All three ask for an injunction that would stop Bonta from enforcing AB 1709. Their core arguments are similar:
Meta wrote in its complaint that because its feeds rely on personalized recommendations and autoplay, the act would make it “unlawful for Meta to disseminate speech to minors altogether” unless it changes those practices, and would force it to delete minors’ accounts. A Meta spokesperson told Courthouse News the company would be forced either to strip features that keep teens’ experiences age-appropriate or to cut thousands of California teens off from family and friends.
TikTok called AB 1709 “a blatantly unconstitutional restriction on free expression” that erodes content curation practices used by bookstores, TV networks and streaming services. Google’s Jose Castaneda said parents are “best positioned to make the right decisions for their families” and that “overly broad laws like this actually break the systems we’ve built to help kids find high-quality, age-appropriate videos.” Google also noted that YouTube autoplay is already off by default for minors and that parents can turn off Shorts.
Bonta’s office said it is reviewing the filings and is “committed to defending California’s commonsense laws to protect kids online.”
AB 1709 is not California’s only move on teen social media. The same companies are also fighting Senate Bill 976, the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, which requires verified parental consent before showing minors addictive feeds. In August 2026, U.S. District Judge Edward Davila denied a preliminary injunction against key parts of that statute and later refused to pause enforcement while the platforms appealed to the Ninth Circuit, Courthouse News reported.
Abroad, Australia banned social media for users under 16 in December 2025. France passed a similar measure that its top court later struck down on free-expression grounds. Meta separately agreed in August 2026 to pay up to $18 billion and limit teenagers’ use of Facebook and Instagram under settlements with nearly all U.S. states over children’s safety claims.
Digital-rights groups are split from the platforms’ framing but still critical of AB 1709’s design. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has called the law a privacy and free-speech problem because age checks can push platforms to collect more data from every user. EFF Associate Director of State Affairs Rindala Alajaji said the bill “compels platforms to collect even more information from every user” and, as a functional ban on social media for youth under 16, “cuts young people off from essential information and experiences.”
The lawsuits land in a wider week of tech and policy news: after Democrats took Congress in the 2026 midterms, investors have been pricing in tighter oversight of AI and big platforms, while shoppers are already dealing with hard-edged platform enforcement such as Amazon canceling GPU orders and closing accounts. Chip makers have also been under pressure after Intel’s recent warning and stock crash.
Nothing changes overnight. AB 1709 does not take effect until January 1, 2027, and the companies are asking courts to block it before then. Until a judge rules, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok and similar apps keep operating under their current teen settings.
Practical steps that still make sense today:
No. It bans providing “addictive features” (including personalized addictive feeds and autoplay) to users under 16. Platforms may still let under-16 users keep accounts if those features are turned off for them.
January 1, 2027, unless a federal court blocks or delays enforcement.
Covered platforms that violate the rules. Penalties are up to $50,000 per affected minor for knowing violations and $25,000 for negligent ones, enforced only by the attorney general or a local prosecutor.
Indirectly, yes, if age verification becomes stricter for everyone. Privacy advocates warn that age-assurance systems can increase data collection for all users, not just teens.
This is a developing legal story. Update after any preliminary injunction ruling or if the companies expand the challenge beyond AB 1709 and SB 976.
Five minutes, every Sunday. Free.
Clear, useful guides on money, health, tech, home and everyday life, one small step at a time.
© 2026 StepByStore. All rights reserved.
Disclosure: some articles include sponsored or guest contributions. Commercial links in those articles are marked as sponsored. Learn more in our Editorial Policy.
