California Attorney General Rob Bonta speaks as Gov. Gavin Newsom looks on during a news conference on April 16, 2025, in Ceres, Calif.
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Last year, a law hit the books in California that would, in 2027, force social media companies to dramatically overhaul the feeds scrolled by millions of children across the state. Last week, three tech juggernauts — the companies that run those feeds — ramped up their battle to stop the law from taking effect.
Meta, TikTok and YouTube each sued California Attorney General Rob Bonta in federal court on Thursday, pointing to the First Amendment and arguing that the law’s attempt to enforce parental controls over social media feeds is a major overreach. They seek an injunction against the state’s enforcement of the law, a push that comes as California ramps up its regulation over the relationships between tech platforms and children.
Article continues below this ad
The law they’re suing over is called the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act. Passed during the 2023-2024 session with bipartisan support, the law blocks companies from giving children the sort of social media feeds we’ve come to expect online — hyperpersonalized, laden with recommended content based on our past social media usage — unless those minors’ parents give specific consent. The law’s text dubbed our current algorithmically mediated feeds “addictive,” and tied social media usage to young people’s mental health struggles.
“Every parent knows the harm social media addiction can inflict on their children — isolation from human contact, stress and anxiety, and endless hours wasted late into the night,” Newsom wrote when he signed the bill in September 2024. “With this bill, California is helping protect children and teenagers from purposely designed features that feed these destructive habits.”
Should the law go into effect as written, young people in the state will see their social media apps transform, with feeds likely turning into simple, chronological streams of posts based on who they follow. That would buck a trend: Meta and YouTube have followed in TikTok’s footsteps by recommending more content from accounts that their users do not expressly follow.
Meta, TikTok and YouTube, filed their lawsuits after NetChoice, their industry trade group, was denied legal standing by the U.S. Court of Appeals in September for its own attempt to block the law’s personalized feed provisions. In their complaints, TikTok and YouTube argue that the law is vague and they skewer the painting of social media feeds as “addictive”; Meta writes that if the law is enforced the company will “suffer an irreparable First Amendment injury.”
Article continues below this ad
But Bonta’s office is up for the fight. Spokesperson Elissa Perez pointed out in a statement to SFGATE that a U.S. Court of Appeals tribunal already snubbed some of NetChoice’s arguments in the September opinion, and said the state’s Department of Justice will respond to these new lawsuits. She also skewered the idea that they’re about free speech.
“Companies have blatantly shown us that they are willing to use addictive design features, including algorithmic feeds and notifications at all hours of the day and night, to target children and teens, solely to increase their profits,” Perez wrote. “And as shown by multiple lawsuits, under the guise of free speech concerns, these same companies have demonstrated they aren’t willing to let go of those profits without a fight.”
The companies, of course, see things very differently, and cast the law as a dramatic overreach that would make their services worse for children.
YouTube spokesperson Nicole Bell and TikTok spokesperson Nathaniel Brown each pointed to their platforms’ existing safety features for young people. Bell wrote that the law doesn’t recognize how YouTube uses recommendations to make sure kids see appropriate content. Meta spokesperson Edward Patterson made a similar point, writing, “Our goal is to build community and provide people with an experience that is relevant and age-appropriate to them—which we would be prevented from doing if this law takes effect.”
Article continues below this ad
Brown dubbed the law a “blatantly unconstitutional restriction on free expression that erodes the long-standing and protected practice of curating content based on user preferences, which book stores, TV networks and streaming services all use.”
It’s a near-guarantee that the companies will take their arguments through appeals if they’re stymied in court. Their current access to a massive market of young Californian scrollers depends on it.
Work at a Bay Area tech company and want to talk? Contact tech reporter Stephen Council securely at stephen.council@sfgate.com or on Signal at 628-204-5452.
Article continues below this ad