California wants to stop social media platforms from keeping kids glued to their screens. Three of the world's biggest technology companies are fighting back.
California wants to stop social media platforms from keeping children glued to their screens.
Google, Meta and TikTok have other ideas.
The three tech giants have filed federal lawsuits challenging a new California law targeting features such as endless scrolling, autoplay videos and personalized recommendations.
These features are familiar to millions of social media users. One video leads to another, personalized recommendations keep appearing, and before long, a few minutes of scrolling can turn into nearly an hour.
California lawmakers want to limit the use of these engagement features among children under 16.
Yesterday, the three technology giants filed separate federal lawsuits seeking to block a California law designed to limit features that can encourage compulsive social media use among children.
The companies argue that the law violates their First Amendment rights and interferes with how they deliver content to users.
Meanwhile, thousands of families are pursuing separate lawsuits alleging that social media companies deliberately designed addictive platforms that contributed to serious mental health problems among young people.
California Wants to Put an End to Endless Scrolling for Kids
Signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September, California's Assembly Bill 1709 is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2027.
The law targets what it calls psychologically exploitative features—the tools that keep users engaged long after they've forgotten why they opened an app in the first place.
Among the restricted features are personalized content feeds, videos that play automatically and endless scrolling.
Social media companies would also have to take reasonable steps to verify users' ages and prevent children under 16 from accessing the restricted features.
The idea is straightforward: Reduce the influence of platform designs that encourage children to spend excessive time online.
But the companies say California's approach creates problems of its own.
Big Tech Fights Back
In lawsuits filed in federal courts in San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Jose, the companies argue that California is attempting to regulate how they organize, recommend and display information.
Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, says the law interferes with its First Amendment protections by allowing the government to dictate how content is presented.
TikTok argues that restricting personalized recommendations limits free expression and undermines parents' ability to decide what online experiences are appropriate for their children.
YouTube owner, Google, says personalized recommendations can help younger users discover educational and age-appropriate videos.
The companies also cite Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the federal law that generally protects online platforms from liability for content posted by users.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta's office has indicated that it intends to defend the legislation.
But the constitutional battle is only one front in a much larger conflict over social media safety.
Thousands of Social Media Harm Lawsuits Are Already Pending
While Google, Meta and TikTok are challenging California's law, social media companies are also defending thousands of lawsuits brought by parents, teenagers and school districts.
At the center of these cases is an allegation that social media platforms weren't simply designed to entertain users. They were engineered to encourage compulsive use, particularly among children and adolescents.
Features such as endless scrolling, personalized recommendations and frequent notifications are central to the litigation.
Families allege that prolonged and compulsive social media use contributed to serious mental health problems, including depression, anxiety, eating disorders, self-harm and suicidal behavior.
Many of the federal cases have been consolidated into Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation (MDL 3047) in the Northern District of California.
As of November 2, 2026, the MDL included 4,309 pending federal cases, according to federal multidistrict litigation statistics.
The cases are overseen by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.
An MDL allows lawsuits involving similar allegations to share evidence gathering and other pretrial proceedings. Unlike a class action, the individual claims generally remain separate.
The central question is whether companies can be held legally responsible for designing platforms that encourage excessive use among children, particularly when those designs allegedly contribute to mental health injuries.
Social Media Companies Face Mounting Legal Pressure
The litigation has already produced significant developments.
In August 2026, Meta agreed to a settlement potentially worth up to $18 billion involving claims brought by nearly every state over the effects of Facebook and Instagram on young people's mental health.
The agreement also includes additional child-safety measures.
In September, TikTok settled a separate case brought by Alabama involving addictive platform features.
These state-level resolutions are separate from the thousands of individual personal injury cases proceeding through MDL 3047.
The lawsuits challenging the law could help determine how far states can go in regulating features that influence what children watch, how long they watch and when they finally put their phones down.