Google, Meta and TikTok sue California over law on children's online addiction risk

Google, Meta and TikTok have sued California to block enforcement of a new state law. The law is intended to limit the risk of addicting children under 16 to online platforms. Both Reuters and The Guardian reported the legal challenge. The further details below come from The Guardian's account.

According to The Guardian, the companies filed separate lawsuits on Wednesday. Google filed in federal court in San Jose, Meta sued in San Francisco and TikTok sued in Los Angeles. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who enforces the state's laws, is the only defendant. His office said on Thursday that it is reviewing the lawsuits.

The law

The Guardian reports that the measure is known as Assembly Bill 1709. It prohibits platforms from offering underage children "psychologically exploitative features" that could lead to compulsive use, such as personal recommendations and autoplay videos. It also requires the deletion of children's accounts with those features.

Governor Gavin Newsom signed the law on 10 September. It takes effect on 1 January 2027 unless a judge voids it or puts it on hold, The Guardian reports.

Wider legal pressure

According to The Guardian, Meta agreed in August to pay up to $18bn and limit teenagers' use of Facebook and Instagram. The agreements were with nearly all US states, which accused it of violating privacy and consumer protection laws.

The three companies and Snapchat parent Snap also still face thousands of lawsuits. Plaintiffs include individuals, school districts and municipalities. They allege that the companies sought to addict children and caused a mental health crisis, with harms such as anxiety, depression and suicide.

Separately, parents in California sued Google on Thursday. They allege that their teenage daughter made plans to end her life after multiple interactions with AI mode on Google Search, which she accessed through a school-issued Chromebook. The reports do not include Google's response.

What each side says

• The companies: They say the law substitutes the state's judgment for that of parents. They also say it violates First Amendment free speech protections and Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act.
• Google: Spokesperson Jose Castaneda said: "Overly broad laws like this actually break the systems we’ve built to help kids find high-quality, age-appropriate videos."
• Meta: It says California cannot override its editorial judgments about how to curate and display posts.
• TikTok: It says protected speech "cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable".
• Attorney General's office: "Our office is committed to defending California’s commonsense laws to protect kids online."
• Governor Newsom: When signing the law, he said California "will not stand by while unregulated technology puts our children at risk".
• Electronic Frontier Foundation: The digital rights group called the law "a massive privacy and free speech nightmare".

What the reports do not say

The reports do not say whether the companies have sought a preliminary injunction, and they do not describe a hearing schedule. They also do not describe the law's penalties or how platforms would determine users' ages.

Analysis

The cases may require courts to weigh California's stated aim of protecting children against the companies' free speech and Section 230 arguments. If a judge puts the law on hold, it would not take effect on 1 January 2027 as scheduled. If it proceeds, platforms may need to change features for younger users or delete affected accounts. Other governments with similar restrictions may watch the outcome, although a ruling in California would not necessarily settle the wider debate. The reports reviewed by Vocemundi give no timetable, and the lawsuits themselves do not establish whether the law would reduce harm to children.

Produced by the Vocemundi newsroom with AI assistance.

Transparency note: objections from our AI reviewers

Objections raised before publication:

• Tribunal: Loaded term: "massive"
• Vocemundi automatic checks: Tribunal: needs fix

No reviewer declined to review it.

Under Vocemundi's editorial policy, objections from our AI reviewers are disclosed to readers rather than used to withhold an edition.