Meta, Google and TikTok each filed separate federal lawsuits against California on Wednesday, seeking to block a new law that would bar social media platforms from offering “addictive features” to users under 16.
The New York Post reports that the three companies sued California Attorney General Rob Bonta over Assembly Bill 1709, which Governor Gavin Newsom (D) signed on September 10 as part of the state’s package of social media and online safety laws for children. The law takes effect January 1.
AB 1709 requires platforms to verify users’ ages and delete the accounts of anyone under 16 unless those accounts are stripped of features California deems addictive, including personalized feeds and autoplay. Companies that knowingly violate the law face penalties of up to $50,000 per affected minor; negligent violations carry fines of $25,000. The attorney general or local prosecutors can enforce it.
The law goes further than SB 976, a 2024 California statute that barred personalized feeds for users under 18 unless their parents consented. AB 1709 includes no such parental consent exception. All three companies are already challenging SB 976 before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Meta filed its complaint in the Northern District of California, arguing the law tramples on protected editorial judgment: “The First Amendment protects the editorial judgments of those who curate, display, and disseminate speech — whether newspapers, parade organizers, or social media platforms. California Assembly Bill 1709 (the ‘Act’ or ‘AB 1709’) is California’s latest attempt to flout that fundamental principle and appoint the State as the editor, curator, and controller of online speech.”
Meta also contends the law’s autoplay restrictions are unconstitutional, arguing that “by forcing Meta to make users take affirmative action before Meta can display expression — infringes Meta’s right to engage in the ‘free and unhampered distribution of’ speech.” The company, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads, said the law unfairly exempts streaming services and review sites like Yelp. A Meta spokesperson said: “We are challenging this law because it violates the First Amendment by letting the government dictate how ideas are organized, displayed, or shared with Californians. Under the law, we would be forced to either remove features that keep teens’ experiences age-appropriate, or cut thousands of California teens off from family, friends, and their communities.”
Meta said it plans to roll out default limits for California teens that only parents can change, including a two-hour daily cap, an overnight block and muted notifications during school hours.
Google and its subsidiary YouTube also sued in the Northern District of California. The companies noted that autoplay is already off by default for every YouTube user under 18, and argued that without personalized feeds, younger users would get lost in the volume. “Twenty million new videos are uploaded to YouTube every day. Without personalized feeds, millions of under-16 users will struggle to find the content that is right for them amongst billions of videos that are geared toward adults or users with different interests. To make matters worse, AB 1709 substitutes the State’s judgment for that of parents, prohibiting under-16 users from accessing personalized feeds even when their parents want them to be able to do so,” the complaint states.
YouTube also said that in defending SB 976, the state could not identify a single peer-reviewed study showing personalization causes or correlates with harm to minors. Google spokesperson José Castañeda said: “We believe parents are best positioned to make the right decisions for their families, which is why we offer a range of protections and tools that put parents in control. Overly broad laws like this actually break the systems we’ve built to help kids find high-quality, age-appropriate videos.”
TikTok, headquartered in Culver City and claiming more than 200 million U.S. users, filed its lawsuit in the Central District of California in Los Angeles. The company argued the law bans it from speaking to younger users through existing feeds “ostensibly in the name of protecting minors,” adding: “That ban applies even if TikTok obtains the onerous parental consent the State (unconstitutionally) required only two years ago. And the law gives the Attorney General discretion to designate new types of banned expression.”
TikTok described the predicament the law creates for teen accounts as “a choice between the rock and the whirlpool.” The company said its teen accounts already include more than 50 preset safety, privacy and security settings, and that it has disabled direct messaging for users under 16 since 2020.
A TikTok spokesperson said: “AB 1709 is 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.” The spokesperson added: “Beyond disregarding real progress in making teens safer online, this law limits free speech and takes away parents’ rights to determine what’s appropriate for their kids.”
All three lawsuits argue the law violates the First Amendment, is preempted by federal Section 230 protections, overrides parental choices and ignores controls platforms already offer.
Bonta’s office said it is reviewing the filings and said in a statement: “Our office is committed to defending California’s commonsense laws to protect kids online.”
Read more at the New York Post here.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of AI, free speech, and online censorship.
——————————————————–
Click Here For The Original Source.
