Blab Tech
Tech Giants Challenge Californias Social-Media Addiction Law in Federal Court
In a bold move that could reshape the digital playground for children, TikTok, Meta Platforms, Alphabet’s YouTube, and Google have filed a federal lawsuit in San Jose, California, contesting the state’s Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act (SB 976). The plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction that would halt the law’s core provisions—prohibiting personalized recommendation systems for users under 13 unless a parent consents or the platform can verify the user’s age.
SB 976, enacted in September 2024, requires social‑media platforms to disable “addictive feeds” for minors, restrict notifications during nighttime and school hours, set default privacy settings, and publicly disclose certain user‑metric data. The first set of restrictions was slated to take effect on January 1, 2025, with an age‑verification requirement scheduled for January 1, 2027. Legal challenges, however, have delayed implementation.
In its filings, YouTube attorney Elizabeth Prelogar—formerly a solicitor general in the Biden administration—argued that the algorithms and human decisions that shape a teenager’s feed are integral to content moderation and cannot be separated. She stressed that personalized feeds help minors discover age‑appropriate content and that the system’s outputs are closely tied to editorial goals.
California Deputy Attorney General Shiwon Choe countered that the platforms’ algorithms “fill in the blank” without human direction, optimizing for engagement and advertising revenue. Choe cited a case in which a minor girl choked herself during a “blackout challenge” after seeing the trend in her feed, arguing that the unknowability of algorithmic recommendations can cause harm.
U.S. District Judge Edward Davila, a Barack Obama appointee, expressed concern about the role of artificial intelligence in curating feeds that may be inappropriate for minors. He questioned where human oversight ends and machine decision‑making begins, indicating that he would apply strict scrutiny to balance the law’s purported benefits against the First Amendment claims.
The plaintiffs also invoked the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Moody v. NetChoice, which held that content‑moderation decisions by interactive service providers are protected by the First Amendment. In that case, the Court vacated and remanded lower‑court rulings that had struck down Florida and Texas statutes limiting moderation. The Ninth Circuit had earlier ruled that NetChoice, an industry trade association, lacked standing to challenge California’s SB 976.
Meta attorney Mark Mosier and Prelogar urged the court to consider less restrictive alternatives, such as enhanced parental controls and platform‑wide modifications, rather than a blanket ban on personalized feeds for minors.
The lawsuit is part of a broader legal battle over California’s digital‑policy agenda. The state’s Attorney General Rob Bonta has welcomed the court’s decision to uphold most of the bill, while the law’s supporters describe it as a necessary step to protect children from harmful content and addictive design.
As the case proceeds, the court will weigh the constitutional claims, the law’s public‑safety objectives, and the technical realities of algorithmic recommendation systems. The outcome could influence how states regulate social‑media platforms and shape the future of online content moderation.
The lawsuit remains pending, with the judge requesting additional briefing. The parties have not yet indicated a timeline for a final ruling, and the law’s enforcement dates remain uncertain.
SB 976, enacted in September 2024, requires social‑media platforms to disable “addictive feeds” for minors, restrict notifications during nighttime and school hours, set default privacy settings, and publicly disclose certain user‑metric data. The first set of restrictions was slated to take effect on January 1, 2025, with an age‑verification requirement scheduled for January 1, 2027. Legal challenges, however, have delayed implementation.
In its filings, YouTube attorney Elizabeth Prelogar—formerly a solicitor general in the Biden administration—argued that the algorithms and human decisions that shape a teenager’s feed are integral to content moderation and cannot be separated. She stressed that personalized feeds help minors discover age‑appropriate content and that the system’s outputs are closely tied to editorial goals.
California Deputy Attorney General Shiwon Choe countered that the platforms’ algorithms “fill in the blank” without human direction, optimizing for engagement and advertising revenue. Choe cited a case in which a minor girl choked herself during a “blackout challenge” after seeing the trend in her feed, arguing that the unknowability of algorithmic recommendations can cause harm.
U.S. District Judge Edward Davila, a Barack Obama appointee, expressed concern about the role of artificial intelligence in curating feeds that may be inappropriate for minors. He questioned where human oversight ends and machine decision‑making begins, indicating that he would apply strict scrutiny to balance the law’s purported benefits against the First Amendment claims.
The plaintiffs also invoked the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Moody v. NetChoice, which held that content‑moderation decisions by interactive service providers are protected by the First Amendment. In that case, the Court vacated and remanded lower‑court rulings that had struck down Florida and Texas statutes limiting moderation. The Ninth Circuit had earlier ruled that NetChoice, an industry trade association, lacked standing to challenge California’s SB 976.
Meta attorney Mark Mosier and Prelogar urged the court to consider less restrictive alternatives, such as enhanced parental controls and platform‑wide modifications, rather than a blanket ban on personalized feeds for minors.
The lawsuit is part of a broader legal battle over California’s digital‑policy agenda. The state’s Attorney General Rob Bonta has welcomed the court’s decision to uphold most of the bill, while the law’s supporters describe it as a necessary step to protect children from harmful content and addictive design.
As the case proceeds, the court will weigh the constitutional claims, the law’s public‑safety objectives, and the technical realities of algorithmic recommendation systems. The outcome could influence how states regulate social‑media platforms and shape the future of online content moderation.
The lawsuit remains pending, with the judge requesting additional briefing. The parties have not yet indicated a timeline for a final ruling, and the law’s enforcement dates remain uncertain.
