Entrar
Big Tech sues over California plan to limit kids’ scrolling
In this article
- California wants to switch off autoplay and personalized feeds for under-16s.
- Google, Meta, and TikTok are suing to stop the restrictions.
- Age checks could raise privacy concerns for adults, too.
Google, Meta, and TikTok filed separate federal lawsuits on November 4, challenging Assembly Bill 1709, which Governor Gavin Newsom signed in September.
The companies argue that the law, due to take effect in 2027, interferes with free speech, overrides parents’ decisions, and conflicts with federal protections for online platforms.
AB 1709 prohibits covered platforms from providing California users under 16 certain
“psychologically exploitative features intended to maximize engagement that foreseeably lead to compulsive use.”
The law specifically includes personalized “addictive feeds” and autoplay. It also allows the attorney general to define additional features through regulations.
It would not ban children from using the platforms. They can keep their accounts if the platform removes the restricted features. Otherwise, the platform must delete the account and associated personal information.
The law also requires age verification before providing the restricted features. The law doesn’t stop children from searching for videos, following creators, or communicating privately. It makes exceptions for certain search-based results, content that a user explicitly requests, and direct private messages, subject to conditions.
California’s argument is that harm is not limited to what children see. It can also arise from how a service encourages them to keep using it, through personalized recommendations and features such as autoplay.
The idea behind the law is straightforward: Instead of relying entirely on teenagers to recognize when to stop, require platforms to remove some of the mechanisms designed to keep them engaged.
The companies’ objections
The companies’ objections fall into several related categories.
Meta argues that deciding which posts to show, and how to arrange them, is protected editorial judgment under the First Amendment. Its complaint accuses California of attempting to appoint itself the
“editor, curator, and controller of online speech.”
TikTok makes a similar argument about its For You feed. It says selecting and arranging videos creates a curated product protected by free-speech rights, not merely a mechanism that the state can redesign at will.
Google likewise argues that YouTube’s recommendations help users find relevant, appropriate material among its vast collection of videos. It also defends autoplay as useful for watching content intended to be viewed in sequence.
The central disagreement is whether these are harmful product features that California can regulate, or editorial decisions protected by free-speech rights. California describes them as potentially harmful product design; the companies describe them as protected decisions about publishing speech.
The companies also raise parental control. Google says parents are best placed to decide what is appropriate for their families. TikTok points to its existing teen-account safeguards and Family Pairing controls, arguing that the law restricts free expression while taking decisions away from parents. Meta adds that personalized features can help deliver age-appropriate experiences.
The business model
There is also a commercial interest at stake: engagement. How often people return, how long they stay, and how much they interact all matter to the platforms’ businesses.
Meta’s annual report says it generates substantially all its revenue from advertising. It also says that changes to its content displays and product features can affect time spent, user engagement, and financial results. That doesn’t establish why the companies sued, but it helps explain why restrictions on recommendations and autoplay could have financial consequences.
If removing these features leads people to spend less time on a service, it could mean fewer opportunities to show ads. Compliance would also require product and operational changes, such as checking users’ ages and providing a different experience to those under 16.
Youth is the future. Big Tech is very much aware of this. Meta’s annual report identifies youth as an investment priority and describes attracting and retaining users as a competitive objective. Restrictions affecting how young people join and use a platform could affect its longer-term audience strategy, too.
What the future will bring
California is challenging an important part of the attention-based business model. Meta’s annual report warns investors that regulation affecting how it displays content or serves younger users could affect user growth, engagement, and financial results.
And then there’s the matter of age verification. The required age checks could affect adults as well as children: a service must verify users’ ages before providing the restricted features. Depending on how the checks work, this could involve sharing age-related information, raising privacy concerns and creating another opportunity for sensitive data to be exposed in a breach.
If it were up to me, platforms would stop designing for compulsive use, whatever the user’s age. Adults deserve a healthier online experience too. Applying those protections to everyone would also remove the need to check someone’s age before deciding whether they can use these features. Platforms might lose some advertising opportunities, but time spent online should not be the only measure of a successful service.
Scammers don’t need to hack you. They just need you to click once.
Malwarebytes Identity Theft Protection catches suspicious activity before it becomes a problem.
