Google, Meta and TikTok are challenging California’s AB 1709, arguing that its restrictions on personalised feeds and autoplay go too far.
Google, Meta and TikTok have filed separate federal lawsuits seeking to block California’s AB 1709, a child online safety law that prohibits covered platforms from providing certain features, including personalised feeds and autoplay, to users under 16. The law was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on 10 September 2026 and is due to take effect on 1 January 2027.
AB 1709 forms part of California’s child online safety framework. The state has already introduced measures around addictive feeds, age verification signals, warning labels, privacy and AI companion safeguards. Under AB 1709, platforms would have to stop offering specified features to under-16 users, including algorithmic feeds based on user history and profile and autoplay.
The companies argue that the law goes beyond regulating harmful content and instead dictates how they may organise and present lawful speech. Meta says the restriction interferes with its editorial choices on Facebook, Instagram and Threads, including decisions about which posts users see and in what order. It also argues that the law is too broad because it applies to all under-16 users regardless of how much time they spend online or their individual circumstances, while other online services with similar recommendation features remain outside the same restrictions.
Google and Youtube make a similar argument, but also say personalised recommendations can help younger users find content that is relevant, educational and appropriate for their age. They argue that removing personalisation could make it harder to navigate YouTube’s large content library and could expose younger users to less suitable material. Google also says the law goes further than California’s earlier SB 976 because the new restrictions would apply even where a parent consents.
TikTok argues that its personalised For You feed is itself an editorial product and that California is effectively requiring the company to create a different version of TikTok for users under 16. It also says the law ignores existing parental controls and teen-safety tools and restricts more speech than necessary to achieve the state’s child-safety objectives. TikTok’s complaint also challenges California’s earlier SB 976, which required parental consent for personalised feeds for minors, and says AB 1709 goes further by removing that parental-consent option for under-16 users.
All three companies also rely on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, arguing that California cannot impose liability for core publishing functions such as selecting, ranking, recommending and presenting third-party content. They are asking the courts to declare the challenged provisions invalid and stop the state from enforcing them before the January commencement date.
Why does it matter?
California has positioned itself at the forefront of US child online safety regulation, with a broad package of laws targeting addictive design, AI companions, privacy and other risks to children. These lawsuits now give Google, Meta and TikTok an opportunity to test that approach from their own point of view, including whether the restrictions are workable and whether California has gone too far in limiting how platforms design and personalise their services. The cases could also affect when AB 1709 takes effect if the companies secure interim relief before January 2027. More broadly, because these platforms operate globally, the arguments and outcomes in California could shape how they respond to similar child-safety laws elsewhere.
————————————————
Source link
