The nationwide debate over social media’s impact on our nation’s youth continues at every level. It’s gone from the smallest of homes to the highest courts and could boomerang all the way back.
A new law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in California looks to regulate how kids interact with social media apps and vice versa. AB 1709 will put strict limits on what’s seen as one of the most addictive social media features for kids.
The ‘reel’ question then becomes whether these social media giants will shut off the feature for kids nationwide or if endless scroll is so valuable that they’ll spend millions determining whether a teen is in California and only block it for them. So far, the companies are tight-lipped.
Download the Straight Arrow app today to get the stories that matter free from manipulation, bias or agenda.™
Point phone camera here
What the bill does
There’s no question social media is addicting, especially for children and teens. Data shows teens spend a lot of their time scrolling.
The question becomes: what is considered an addictive feature?
“There are three definitions,” Eric Goldman, co-director of the Datta Center for High Tech Law at Santa Clara University, told Straight Arrow. “One is essentially personalized feeds, which is something that California has already attempted to ban before and has run into constitutional problems doing so.”
The second is autoplay, which we’ve basically seen. It’s when your feed automatically starts the next video or piece of content as soon as the previous one ends.
“The third thing is that the government gives authority to its executive branch to basically design other things as addictive features if it so chooses,” Goldman said.
This new legislation blocks those features for anyone under the age of 16. They can still have their account, but these features won’t be part of it.
Dr. Erica Felsenthal, a licensed psychologist who testified before California lawmakers in favor of the bill, pointed to autoplay as one of the biggest ways these apps keep people engaged.
“There’s no stopping point,” she said. “There’s no place for the brain to go, ‘okay, that’s a natural ending.’ No, it just keeps going.”
Social media companies that can’t make this adjustment will need to stop allowing teens and kids 16 and under to have accounts.
Those that don’t solve the problem will face potentially heavy fines of up to $50,000 per affected minor.
Bill advocates
Advocates say this kind of legislation is necessary because of the mental damage being done to teens and children by these apps.
“You have so many people with body dysmorphic disorder, eating disorders, rising rates of depression, anxiety, to name a few,” Felsenthal said.
A jury recently found Meta and YouTube were negligent in designing and marketing products that contributed to a young woman’s social media addiction and subsequent mental health problems. Research shows frequent social media use by teens may also impact brain development and behavior. Felsenthal said social media use can impair schooling, concentration and even sleep.
“So that’s another big one that sleeps disrupted, and sleep disruption also contributes to poor mental health outcomes. So, it’s kind of a vicious cycle,” she said.
Many experts believe we’re currently in a youth mental health crisis. Nearly 40% of high school students report feeling persistent sadness or hopelessness.
“Social media use has contributed to this, and it’s also taking away from other activities that kids could be engaged in,” Felsenthal said.
Tech industry response
Naturally, social media companies have pushed back on this legislation.
“We believe that delivering a tailored experience is an important part of what makes Facebook and Instagram valuable for teens as they connect with family and friends and explore their interests–safely,” a Meta spokesperson said in a statement to Straight Arrow. “Personalization is also how we deliver age-appropriate content for teens that is relevant to them – all with the proper guardrails in place.”
Social media companies have until Jan. 1, 2027, to implement these changes.
However, more pushback could still come.
“This will be subject to a constitutional challenge,” Goldman said. So, the outcome of that constitutional challenge is going to dictate whether, if and when the law ever goes into effect.”
That challenge would be under the First Amendment. Companies could argue California is violating teens’ free speech rights.
However, where that challenge might come from is unclear at the moment.
It could come from a major social media company like Meta. It could come from an industry group like NetChoice, which has already legally pushed back against similar California legislation.
There’s even a chance it could not come at all.
“The companies, believe it or not, are kind of tapped out legally,” Goldman said. “They have so many constitutional challenges being litigated throughout the country. They’re exhausted with the litigation battles. It wouldn’t surprise me if some companies tap out and hope that some other companies will carry the water. It’s difficult even for some of the richest companies in the world to manage that burden.”
Nationwide impact?
If this law does end up standing, the question then becomes how to implement this. Can social media companies just geofence California and enforce this only in the Golden State or any other state that passes similar measures?
“Many social media services are already attempting to determine the location of their users, and so the presumption is at least many of the large social media companies have already figured out where their users are, and then can treat California users separately,” Goldman said.
There’s also the California effect. The state is such a massive market that sometimes when California changes industry regulations, the industry will just change things nationwide.
Whether that could happen here is extremely unclear, especially with a pending battle still brewing.
“It’s also possible that other states would adopt laws that are different than California’s or overlapping but inconsistent with California’s,” Goldman said.
That’s happened before, especially with age verification laws.
For example, that regulation in California really puts that issue into the hands of providers like Apple and Google. More than 2,000 miles east, Tennessee puts that burden on the apps themselves.
“That’s one of the many problems with state-level attempts to regulate the internet,” Goldman said.
A solution could be the federal government getting involved and taking the reins.
There are likely a few reasons why that hasn’t happened. First, Goldman and others have described Congress as largely dysfunctional in recent sessions.
“Second, and perhaps more importantly, is it’s possible that California’s law is crap, and that the reason why Congress hasn’t done something similar is because this is not good policy,” Goldman said. “And so, we shouldn’t criticize Congress’s inaction here unless we’re confident that California’s action is actually laudable.”
That doesn’t mean advocates wouldn’t like to see them try.
“I think we need more government regulation,” Felsenthal said. “Parents can’t do it alone, and we need to put more responsibility on the social media companies, and I think we’re going to find out in several years, this is a lot like big tobacco legislation was.”
It’s hard to argue against the fact that social media addiction is having a seriously negative impact on the brains of kids and teens. While that may be undeniably true, questions remain about how to fix it, how to regulate it, and what’s legal.
