By admin
Three of the world’s largest technology companies are taking California to court over a new law aimed at protecting teenagers from potentially addictive features on social media platforms: infinite scrolling, autoplay, recommendation algorithms and notifications.
The law would restrict the use of those features for users younger than 16.
Lowenthal says the goal is to prevent technology companies from using features he believes are deliberately designed to keep children engaged for extended periods.
“We have a multi-trillion dollar sector that’s mining our children’s attention span for a profit,” Lowenthal told NBC4. “And what this bill does is identifies the four harmful features the social media is utilizing to addict children: infinite scrolling, autoplay, algorithms, notifications.”
The lawmaker says the legislation received unanimous bipartisan support in the California Legislature, but the technology companies argue the restrictions violate constitutional protections and could have unintended consequences for young users.
In a statement to NBC4, Google argued that parents should have the final say over their children’s online experiences.
“We believe parents are best positioned to make the right decisions for their families, which is why we offer a range of protections and tools that put parents in control. Overly broad laws like this actually break the systems we’ve built to help kids find high-quality, age-appropriate videos,” a Google spokesperson said.
Google, which owns YouTube, says it already offers numerous protections for younger users, including disabling autoplay by default for users under 18 and allowing parents to turn off the YouTube Shorts feed entirely.
The company also argues that restricting content discovery features could prevent teenagers from accessing educational videos and other beneficial material.
Google says it offered amendments during the legislative process in an effort to improve the bill.
Under an $18 billion settlement agreement, Meta said it will add new protections for its youngest users. Conan Nolan reports for the NBC4 News at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, Aug. 26, 2026.
Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, raised similar constitutional concerns.
“We are challenging this law because it violates the First Amendment by letting the government dictate how ideas are organized, displayed, or shared with Californians. Under the law, we would be forced to either remove features that keep teens’ experiences age-appropriate, or cut thousands of California teens off from family, friends, and their communities,” a Meta spokesperson said.
TikTok also argues that California is overstepping its authority.
“AB 1709 is a blatantly unconstitutional restriction on free expression that erodes the long-standing and protected practice of curating content based on user preferences, which book stores, TV networks and streaming services all use. TikTok teen accounts have more than 50 preset safety, privacy and security settings, and Family Pairing helps guardians customize the experience for their teens. In addition, we’ve led the <a s safety comes before parental choice
One of the central arguments raised by the companies is whether the government should be allowed to impose restrictions on teenagers even when their parents approve of their social media use.
NBC4 asked Lowenthal why the government should make that decision instead of parents.
“We don’t allow parents to say that children can be in a casino or in a bar. We don’t say that child parents should be able to tell whether or not children should wear a helmet when they’re riding a bicycle or a skateboard or be in a car seat when they’re in an automobile. Certain public health issues trump parental <a argument that the law violates the First Amendment.
“We wrote this legislation specifically to comport with case precedent in this topic. That is specifically why we’re not regulating content here on any circumstance at all. It is not about the First Amendment,” he said.
“We’ve expected lawsuits all along. This is straight out of the big tech playbook,” Lowenthal said.
Instagram’s parent company Meta and Google’s YouTube are in the landmark trial while TikTok and Snap have settled. Camilla Rambaldi reports for the NBC4 News at 4 p.m. on Monday, Feb. 9, 2026.
He accused the companies of using litigation to delay implementation of the restrictions while continuing to generate revenue from their platforms.
“And let’s not forget that time is money. Even if this law comes into play a year from now, two years from now, three years from now, because it takes that time to make it through the legal system, that’s billions of dollars in profit that they’re going to make in the meantime. Time is money. This is strategic play by them.”
Those allegations are disputed by the companies, which maintain that their lawsuits are intended to protect constitutional rights, existing safety features and access to online communities.
Despite the legal fight, Lowenthal says he does not want children banned from social media altogether.
“I would rather that these companies eliminate the addictive features. We do not want a situation of having any social isolation. There are merits to social media that you know children can find as long as it’s not harmful for them,” he said.
The law is scheduled to take effect in January, but the lawsuits could affect when or whether its restrictions are enforced.
Lowenthal says he is confident California Attorney General Rob Bonta will defend the legislation.
The measure also establishes an eSafety Commission intended to monitor evolving technology and advise lawmakers on future protections for children.
