Standfirst: Google, Meta and TikTok have each sued California in federal court to block a new state law that would bar social media platforms from offering personalized feeds and autoplay videos to users under 16. The three companies filed separate lawsuits on Wednesday, November 4, 2026, against California Attorney General Rob Bonta. The law, Assembly Bill 1709, was signed on September 10, 2026, and is set to take effect on January 1, 2027. As of November 6, 2026, no court had issued an order blocking the law or deciding whether it is constitutional.
What happened
- Three separate lawsuits: Google, Meta and TikTok each filed their own federal lawsuit on Wednesday, November 4, 2026, seeking to block Assembly Bill 1709, known as AB 1709. Each case asks a federal court to stop the law from taking effect.
- Where the cases were filed: Google filed in federal court in San Jose, California. Meta filed in San Francisco. TikTok filed in Los Angeles. The three cases are in three different federal courts, but they all target the same law and they all name the same defendant.
- The defendant: California Attorney General Rob Bonta is the only defendant in all three suits, because his office would enforce the law along with local prosecutors. The companies want the courts to block AB 1709 before it takes effect on January 1, 2027.
- What this is, and what it is not: These are the companies’ allegations in their complaints. They are claims made by Google, Meta and TikTok at the start of a lawsuit. They are not findings by a court, and no judge has yet ruled on whether the law is constitutional.
What AB 1709 bans
- The age line: The law applies to users under 16. That is lower than the age of 18 used in the earlier California law described below, but the new law is stricter and it offers no way around the ban.
- Personalized feeds: Social media platforms may not offer users under 16 a personalized feed. A personalized feed is a feed of posts or videos chosen for the individual user, picked by the platform based on that user’s activity and interests. The law treats this kind of feed as one of the features it calls psychologically exploitative or addictive.
- Autoplay videos: The law also bans autoplay videos for users under 16. Autoplay means a video starts playing on its own, without the user pressing play, and the next video often starts as soon as the last one ends.
- The law’s wording: The ban covers features the law calls “psychologically exploitative” or “addictive,” and personalized feeds and autoplay videos are the two features named.
- Deleting accounts: Platforms must delete the accounts of under-16 users who continue to receive those features, along with their personal information.
The penalties and who enforces the law
- Knowing violations: A company that knowingly breaks the law can face a penalty of up to $50,000 per affected minor, so the total can grow with the number of young users involved.
- Negligent violations: A company that breaks the law through negligence, meaning it failed to take reasonable care, can face up to $25,000 per affected minor.
- Who can bring a case: The law is enforced by the attorney general or by local prosecutors, which is why Attorney General Rob Bonta is the defendant in all three lawsuits.
What the companies argue
- First Amendment: The companies argue that the law violates the First Amendment by dictating how they select and display content. They say that choosing which posts and videos to show, and in what order, is their editorial judgment, and that the government cannot tell them how to make those choices.
- Section 230: The companies also argue that the law is preempted by Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, the federal law that shapes how online platforms are treated for content posted by users. They say a state law that controls how they present content conflicts with that federal law, and that federal law should win.
- Parents, not the state: The companies argue that the law substitutes the state’s judgment for parents’ choices. In their view, parents should decide what their children see online, and the state should not make that choice for them. They also say the law ignores controls the platforms already offer, meaning tools that parents and users can already use to limit what appears in a feed.
- The common thread: The companies say the law goes too far, that it tells private companies how to run their services, and that it takes decisions away from families.
What California says
- The attorney general’s office: A representative for Attorney General Bonta said the office is reviewing the filings and is committed to defending California’s laws to protect kids online. The office did not concede any of the companies’ arguments. It said it will defend the law in court.
- The governor’s view: Governor Gavin Newsom, who signed AB 1709 on September 10, 2026, has said children’s safety should be central to any discussion about technology. That statement sums up the state’s side of the dispute: the law is about protecting children online, and the state believes that goal justifies the rules it sets.
- Two sides, one question: The state says the law protects children. The companies say the law breaks the Constitution and federal law. They agree on what the law does and disagree on whether the state is allowed to do it. That disagreement is now for the federal courts to decide.
How AB 1709 goes further than the 2024 law
- The earlier law: AB 1709 goes further than a 2024 California law, SB 976, which barred personalized feeds for users under 18 without parental consent. Under SB 976, a platform could still offer a personalized feed to a user under 18 if a parent consented.
- No parental-consent exception: AB 1709 has no parental-consent exception. Even if a parent agrees, a platform may not offer the banned features to a user under 16. That is the key difference between the two laws, and it is why AB 1709 is stricter than the law that came before it.
- A wider ban: The new law also covers autoplay videos, which the earlier law did not. It covers a younger age group, under 16 rather than under 18, but it bans more features and it leaves no way for a parent to opt in.
- The earlier fight is still going: The three companies are already challenging SB 976, and that appeal is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Why TikTok’s For You feed is at the center
- The feed that defines TikTok: TikTok says the law threatens its For You feed, which uses algorithms to select videos for each user. The For You feed is the main screen TikTok users see when they open the app, and it is built around videos chosen for that person. If personalized feeds are banned for users under 16, TikTok says its core product is directly affected.
- Why this matters beyond TikTok: Google and Meta also run services built around personalized feeds and autoplay video. A ruling on AB 1709 would shape how all three companies can serve users under 16 in California, the largest state in the country.
- Meta’s recent settlement: In August 2026, Meta reached an $18 billion settlement to end a trial over teen social media addiction claims filed by nearly every state, as reported by TheWrap. That settlement ended a trial, not a ruling on the law. Meta is also facing a separate $25 billion claim from New Mexico, as covered in our report on Meta’s $25 billion New Mexico case.
What happens next
- No ruling yet: As of November 6, 2026, no court had issued an order blocking AB 1709 or deciding its constitutionality. The companies have filed their complaints, the state has said it will defend the law, and the courts have not yet ruled.
- The questions the courts must answer: The courts will have to weigh the companies’ First Amendment argument, their claim that Section 230 preempts the law, and their argument about parents’ choices, against the state’s case for protecting children online.
- The clock is running: The law is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2027. That gives the courts less than two months from the filing date to decide whether to block it before it starts. If no court blocks it before that date, it will take effect as written.
- The earlier case may matter: The pending Ninth Circuit appeal over SB 976, the 2024 law, may shape how the new cases are argued, since both laws deal with personalized feeds for young users.
- More state lawsuits are coming: State attorneys general are suing technology companies on other fronts as well. Texas has sued OpenAI and its chief executive, as covered in our report on Texas suing OpenAI and Sam Altman. The California cases are part of a much larger wave of government legal action against big tech.
Related coverage: DOJ Alaska Senate certification lawsuit
Sources
- Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/google-meta-tiktok-sue-block-california-youth-social-media-law-2026-11-05/
- TechCrunch (Nov 5, 2026): https://techcrunch.com/2026/11/05/meta-google-and-tiktok-sue-california-ag-over-teen-social-media-law/
- TheWrap (Nov 6, 2026): https://www.thewrap.com/industry-news/tech/google-meta-tiktok-lawsuit-california-social-media-minor-safety-law/
- NY Post (Nov 5, 2026): https://nypost.com/2026/11/05/us-news/meta-google-and-tiktok-sue-california-to-block-incoming-content-law/
