From January 1, 2027, California’s AB 1709 would switch off personalized feeds and autoplay for users under 16. The law covers Instagram, YouTube, TikTok and similar apps. Meta, Google and TikTok have now each sued to stop it before it takes effect.
The three companies filed separate federal lawsuits on Wednesday evening, November 4, according to Politico. Each one names California Attorney General Rob Bonta as the defendant. The platforms argue the law violates the First Amendment and is preempted by Section 230. They want a court to declare it unconstitutional and block enforcement.
What California’s AB 1709 changes for teens and parents
Governor Newsom signed AB 1709 on September 10, 2026. It targets two features for users under 16: personalized feeds and autoplay. MDL Update describes a personalized feed as one that recommends or prioritizes posts based on information tied to the user or their device.
Teens would not be locked out entirely. Common Sense Media, which sponsored the bill, says platforms can still offer accounts to younger users with those features turned off. TechCrunch reports that the law requires platforms to delete under-16 accounts if the features stay on. Meta’s own complaint describes the same effect.
The penalties are steep. A knowing violation can cost up to $50,000 per affected minor, and a negligent one up to $25,000. Only the Attorney General or a local public prosecutor can enforce the law, so parents cannot sue on their own. The Attorney General can also write rules that name more addictive features and adjust which platforms are covered.
The age-check link to Android and iOS
Common Sense Media says AB 1709 ties its age checks to California’s Digital Age Assurance Act. That separate law also starts on January 1, 2027. It makes providers of operating systems like Android and iOS ask for an age during device setup. They then pass an age-bracket signal to apps. We covered how it applies to Android in our post on California’s plan to exempt open-source Android from its age-check law.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is not on board. Its Rindala Alajaji argues the law forces platforms to collect more data from every user, adults included, according to TechCrunch. That is a real cost, even for a law meant to protect teens.
What Meta, Google and TikTok argue
The companies frame the fight as one over free expression and parental choice.
“Overly broad laws like this actually break the systems we’ve built to help kids find high-quality, age-appropriate videos.”
That line comes from a Google spokesperson, in a statement reported by TechCrunch. Google also points out that YouTube autoplay is already off by default for minors. Parents can block a teen’s access to Shorts entirely, the company says. Those tools only help if parents know they exist and switch them on, though.
The platforms also have a commercial stake in keeping feeds and autoplay running. Their free-speech case is a legal argument, not a settled fact.
Bonta’s office is reviewing the filings and intends to defend the state’s child-safety laws, according to TechCrunch. Lowenthal, the bill’s lead author, told Politico the lawsuits did not surprise him. He described them as a familiar big tech tactic.
What happens next
The cases are at an early stage. As of November 6, no court has ruled on whether to pause the law. If it survives, California teens and parents will see the changes when the new year starts.
California isn’t alone. Australia banned social media for under-16s in December 2025. Greece’s ban for under-15s begins on January 1, 2027. Meta also faces a proposed settlement that would cap teen accounts at two hours a day.
Sources: TechCrunch, Politico, Common Sense Media, MDL Update
This post was written with AI assistance from public sources and published under the editorial responsibility of AndroidPure’s editor. How we work.
