Google, Meta and TikTok Sue California, Will Social Media Feeds Be Restricted for Children Under 16?

Google, Meta and TikTok have each filed a federal lawsuit to stop California from enforcing a new law that would restrict personalized feeds and autoplay for children under 16.

The three suits were filed on November 4, 2026, against California Attorney General Rob Bonta. They challenge Assembly Bill 1709 (AB 1709), which Governor Gavin Newsom signed on September 10, 2026. The law is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2027.

One point matters most for parents. California is not banning every under-16 from Instagram, TikTok, Facebook or YouTube. The law lets children keep accounts as long as the platform does not give them the restricted features.

The companies say the law violates the First Amendment, conflicts with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and takes decisions away from parents. California says it is protecting children from features built to keep them scrolling.

As of November 11, 2026, no court has ruled on the merits, and we found no order blocking the law. Preliminary injunction requests are pending.

Below is what the law does, what each company argues, how it compares with California’s earlier SB 976, and what could happen before January 1.

Quick Facts: The AB 1709 Lawsuits

Detail	Verified information
Challenged law	California Assembly Bill 1709 (Chapter 183, Statutes of 2026)
Law signed	September 10, 2026
Effective date	January 1, 2027
Lawsuits filed	November 4, 2026
Plaintiffs	Google LLC, YouTube LLC, Meta Platforms, Inc., TikTok Inc., TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC
Defendant	California Attorney General Rob Bonta
Users covered	Under 16
Restricted features	Covered personalized feeds, autoplay and other defined addictive features
Age verification	Required before a platform offers the covered features
Penalty, knowing violation	Up to $50,000 per affected minor
Penalty, negligent violation	Up to $25,000 per affected minor
Main legal arguments	First Amendment, Section 230, parental rights
Status	Pending, no verified injunction
Class action or claim form	None

Sources: California AB 1709, the Google complaint, and federal court dockets. [1][2][3][4]

The Three Federal Cases

Company	Case	Case number	Court
Google and YouTube	Google LLC and YouTube LLC v. Bonta	5:26-cv-13204	U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose)
Meta Platforms	Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Bonta	3:26-cv-13201	U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
TikTok	TikTok Inc. and TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC v. Bonta	2:26-cv-12965	U.S. District Court, Central District of California

Each company is asking for a declaration that the challenged provisions are unlawful and an injunction that stops the Attorney General from enforcing them.

What Does California AB 1709 Actually Ban?

AB 1709 adds Sections 22682 through 22686 to the California Business and Professions Code. It targets what the law defines as addictive features, meaning design choices lawmakers believe encourage compulsive use. Two features are named directly.

Personalized feeds

A personalized feed recommends content based on a user’s interests, past activity, interactions or device data. TikTok’s For You page and the recommendation systems on Instagram and YouTube may fall under the law when they meet the statutory definition.

The law has exceptions for some content-selection methods. These include content a user asked for, private messages, certain search results, and content from a creator the user chose to follow.

So AB 1709 does not stop a child from watching videos or reading posts. It restricts how the platform picks what to show next.

Autoplay

Autoplay starts a new video or item without the user asking for it. AB 1709 lists it as a restricted feature for users under 16.

The companies say autoplay has legitimate uses, such as playlists and educational series. California’s position is that removing it reduces the pull to keep watching.

Other features and future regulations

The statute’s definition of addictive features can be expanded through regulations, within legal limits. Some descriptions of the law also point to features such as infinite scroll. Check the enacted text for the exact definition before relying on any summary, including this one.

Will Instagram, YouTube and TikTok Accounts for Under-16s Be Deleted?

Not automatically.

Section 22683 allows children under 16 to create or keep an account if the platform does not give them the prohibited features. Section 22684 generally requires deletion of under-16 accounts and their personal information, but excepts accounts that meet that condition.

Situation	What AB 1709 requires
Under-16 user would see a prohibited personalized feed	Platform must block the feature
Under-16 user would get prohibited autoplay	Platform must block the feature
Under-16 account without prohibited features	Account may stay
Platform cannot keep an under-16 account compliant	Deletion requirement may apply
User is 16 or older	Feature ban does not apply, though age checks may

No platform has announced a confirmed account-deletion schedule. What users actually see will depend on how the law is enforced, any regulations, and the outcome of the lawsuits.

Why Is Google Suing California?

Google and YouTube filed their complaint on November 4 in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division (No. 5:26-cv-13204). The original complaint is 28 pages.

Google argues that recommending videos is editorial judgment that the First Amendment protects. It says YouTube’s recommendations help people find educational and age-appropriate material, and that autoplay supports content made to be watched in sequence. It also says the law replaces the choices of families and platforms with the state’s.

Google points to existing protections as well. For example, autoplay on YouTube is already off by default for minors.

On November 5, Google and YouTube filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Filing the motion does not mean the court has granted it. A case-management conference is currently set for February 2, 2027, and that date could change.

Why Is Meta Challenging AB 1709?

Meta sued in San Francisco (No. 3:26-cv-13201). The challenge covers its services, including Facebook, Instagram and Threads.

Meta argues that choosing, ordering and recommending content is expressive activity. It also challenges the account-deletion provisions and argues that federal law protects decisions about distributing third-party content. Meta says the law would make its current personalized recommendations and autoplay for minors unlawful unless it changes them or deletes accounts. It points to its existing teen settings and parental controls as better options.

None of these arguments has been accepted or rejected in a final ruling.

Why Is TikTok Suing Over Its For You Feed?

TikTok Inc. and TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC sued in the Central District of California (No. 2:26-cv-12965).

TikTok argues that the For You feed reflects choices about which user-created videos to select and present, and that those choices are protected expression. It also argues that AB 1709 overrides parents. A child under 16 could not use the restricted features even if a parent approves.

The case is pending.

The Legal Arguments Explained

The First Amendment

The core dispute is whether deciding how to rank, recommend and display content is protected editorial speech. The companies say it is, and compare their feeds to a publisher arranging material.

They have support in recent Supreme Court law. In Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (2024), the Court said that curating and arranging third-party content can be expressive activity, though it sent those cases back for further analysis of how the laws actually apply. In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011), the Court struck down a California law restricting violent video games for minors, and said the government cannot create new categories of speech restrictions just because the audience is young.

California answers that AB 1709 regulates product design, not viewpoints, and that protecting children’s well-being is a compelling interest. Which level of constitutional scrutiny applies, and whether the law is narrowly tailored, will drive the outcome.

Section 230

The companies also cite 47 U.S.C. § 230, which generally protects online services from being treated as the publisher of content created by others. They argue that California is regulating how they arrange and recommend that content.

Section 230 is not a blanket exemption from state law. Courts look at what conduct a law actually regulates. California is likely to argue that AB 1709 targets product features, not the publication of any particular post. No court has resolved this question in the November cases.

Parental rights

The companies say parents, not the state, should decide which features a child can use. This matters because AB 1709 does not include a parental-consent exception, which is a key difference from SB 976 (see below).

How AB 1709 Compares With California’s SB 976

California already has a related law, SB 976, the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act. It restricts addictive feeds for minors, but generally allows them with verifiable parental consent.

Issue	SB 976	AB 1709
Focus	Addictive feeds for minors	Defined addictive features for users under 16
Parental consent	Can allow certain feeds	Does not override the under-16 restriction
Features covered	Mainly feeds and related protections	Feeds, autoplay and other defined features
Account deletion	Not the same general requirement	Applies if an under-16 account cannot meet the exception
Litigation	Earlier cases and appeals	Three new suits filed November 4, 2026

In August 2026, a federal district judge denied preliminary injunction requests against specified personalized-feed provisions of SB 976, and the companies appealed [6]. That ruling concerned a different statute. It does not automatically decide AB 1709, which has different requirements.

Related Laws Worth Knowing

• Digital Age Assurance Act. AB 1709’s age-verification requirement ties into this California law, along with an alternative age-determination method under existing state law.
• COPPA (15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506). The federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act covers children under 13 and is separate from AB 1709, which focuses on users under 16.
• California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act. Another California child-safety law that has faced its own First Amendment challenge. It is a different statute from AB 1709.
• Other states. Several states have passed or proposed laws on minors and social media, and courts have reached mixed results. The AB 1709 rulings could influence those efforts.

Will Adults Have to Verify Their Age?

Potentially, yes. Section 22684 requires a covered platform to verify a user’s age before offering the prohibited features. That means age checks could reach adults who want personalized features, not only children.

The statute does not clearly require every user to upload a government ID. How verification works in practice will depend on implementation and any rules adopted.

Penalties and Enforcement

Section 22686 authorizes civil enforcement by the California Attorney General and local public prosecutors.

• Up to $50,000 per affected minor for a knowing violation.
• Up to $25,000 per affected minor for a negligent violation.

Courts must weigh factors such as the severity and length of the violation and the platform’s good-faith compliance efforts. The law also creates an e-Safety Advisory Commission.

These are penalties against platforms, not payments to families. AB 1709 does not create a cash claim program for parents or teens, and it is not a class action.

What California Says

Governor Newsom signed AB 1709 on September 10 as part of a broader child-safety package [5]. His office said the goal is to protect minors from features that encourage prolonged or compulsive use. The Attorney General’s office has said it is reviewing the lawsuits and will keep defending California’s laws that protect kids online.

Is This the Same as the Social Media Addiction Lawsuits?

No. These three cases are brought by tech companies against California to challenge a statute. They are separate from personal-injury cases claiming that platform design harmed users’ mental health.

We cover those disputes separately:

• Social Media Addiction Lawsuit, Did Excessive Use Cause Mental Health Harm?
• Meta $17 Billion Settlement, What the Deal With 51 States Actually Covers
• Meta and Snap Settle Social Media Addiction Before Los Angeles Trial

Those cases involve different claims and different legal consequences.

What Should California Parents Do Before January 1, 2027?

Nothing changes for accounts just because the lawsuits were filed. You can still prepare:

1. Check the age on your child’s accounts on Instagram, Facebook, TikTok and YouTube.
2. Review parental controls, including screen-time limits, autoplay settings and feed preferences.
3. Save important account content if a platform later announces changes that affect access.
4. Watch for official platform notices about how California accounts will be handled.
5. Follow court rulings before assuming the law has been blocked or that accounts will be deleted.

Rely on court orders, California government announcements and platform notices rather than social media claims that all kids will lose access.

Key Dates

Date	Development
August 5, 2026	Federal judge denies preliminary injunction against specified SB 976 provisions
September 10, 2026	Governor Newsom signs AB 1709
November 4, 2026	Google, Meta and TikTok file separate federal lawsuits
November 5, 2026	Google and YouTube file preliminary injunction motion
November 11, 2026	No verified injunction blocking AB 1709
January 1, 2027	AB 1709 scheduled to take effect
February 2, 2027	Initial case-management conference in Google case (subject to change)

What Happens Next?

The near-term question is whether a federal court will pause AB 1709 before January 1. To win a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff generally has to show it is likely to succeed on the merits, that it will suffer irreparable harm without relief, and that the balance of equities and the public interest favor an injunction.

A preliminary injunction would not end the case. A denial would not mean the law is constitutional in every respect. The parties could keep litigating the First Amendment and preemption questions, and any ruling can be appealed.

Possible outcomes include a pause on enforcement, a partial block of certain provisions, the law taking effect as written, or a long appeal.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is California AB 1709? It is a California law, signed September 10, 2026, that restricts personalized feeds, autoplay and other defined addictive features for users under 16. It is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2027.

Who sued California over AB 1709? Google and YouTube, Meta Platforms, and TikTok (with TikTok USDS Joint Venture) each filed separate federal lawsuits on November 4, 2026.

Is AB 1709 blocked right now? Not as far as we could verify. As of November 11, 2026, preliminary injunction requests are pending and no court order blocks the law.

Does AB 1709 ban social media for kids under 16? No. Children under 16 can keep accounts if the platform does not provide the restricted features.

Can parents consent to personalized feeds for their under-16 child? AB 1709 does not include a parental-consent exception for the restricted features. SB 976, an earlier law, does allow certain feeds with verifiable parental consent.

Will my child’s account be deleted? Not automatically. Deletion may apply only if a platform cannot keep an under-16 account free of the prohibited features.

What are the penalties for violating AB 1709? Up to $50,000 per affected minor for knowing violations and up to $25,000 per affected minor for negligent violations, enforced by the Attorney General and local prosecutors.

Can I join a class action or claim money? No. These are lawsuits by companies against the state, not class actions, and the law creates no claim program for families.

Will adults need to verify their age? Possibly. Platforms must verify age before offering the restricted features, which could affect adults who want access to them. The exact process is not yet settled.

Does this affect the social media addiction lawsuits against Meta, TikTok and others? No. Those are separate personal-injury and government cases with different claims.

What is the legal basis of the companies’ challenge? They argue AB 1709 violates the First Amendment, is preempted or limited by Section 230, and overrides parental decision-making.

Where can I follow the cases? Check the federal dockets for case numbers 5:26-cv-13204, 3:26-cv-13201 and 2:26-cv-12965, or official statements from the parties.

The Bottom Line

Google, Meta and TikTok are asking federal courts to stop California from restricting personalized feeds and autoplay for users under 16. They say the law violates the First Amendment, intrudes on parental authority, and conflicts with federal law. California says it is protecting children from engagement-driven design.

AB 1709 does not ban all under-16 accounts. It allows accounts without the restricted features. The law takes effect January 1, 2027, unless a court blocks or limits it, and no court has yet decided whether it is constitutional.

The next development to watch is a ruling on the preliminary injunction motions before the effective date.

Sources

1. California Assembly Bill 1709, Chapter 183, Statutes of 2026. Official legislative record. Contains Business and Professions Code Sections 22682–22686.
2. Google LLC and YouTube LLC v. Bonta, original complaint, Nov. 4, 2026. Federal complaint (PDF). N.D. Cal., No. 5:26-cv-13204.
3. Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Bonta. Docket, No. 3:26-cv-13201. N.D. Cal.
4. TikTok Inc. and TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC v. Bonta. Docket, No. 2:26-cv-12965. C.D. Cal.
5. Governor of California, Sept. 10, 2026. Signing announcement.
6. Order denying preliminary injunction, Meta v. Bonta (SB 976), Aug. 5, 2026. Order (PDF).

Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (U.S. 2024), Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. 786 (2011), 47 U.S.C. § 230, and 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 are cited as background law.

Verification note: The three November 4 filings and their case numbers are confirmed. The Google complaint was reviewed directly. The Meta and TikTok filings were confirmed through court records, but their full texts were not independently retrieved. No order blocking AB 1709 was verified as of November 11, 2026.

Disclaimer: AllAboutLawyer.com is an independent U.S. consumer legal information website, not a law firm. This article is general legal information, not legal advice. The lawsuits are pending, and the constitutionality of the challenged provisions has not been decided. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed attorney.