OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Meta Google and TikTok Sue California Over Social Media Law

4 sources · updated 2026-11-06
Left 25% Center 25% Right 50%
1 left · 1 center · 2 right

What happened

Meta, Google, and TikTok each filed separate federal lawsuits against California Attorney General Rob Bonta seeking to block Assembly Bill 1709, which Governor Gavin Newsom signed on September 10 and which is set to take effect January 1. The law bars social media platforms from offering personalized feeds, autoplay, and other features the attorney general deems “addictive” to users under 16, requires age verification, and requires platforms to delete under-16 accounts unless those features are stripped. Knowing violations can draw penalties of up to $50,000 per affected minor and negligent ones up to $25,000. The companies contend the statute violates the First Amendment, is preempted by federal Section 230, and overrides parents’ choices. It goes further than California’s 2024 law SB 976 — which barred personalized feeds for users under 18 without parental consent and which the companies are already challenging in the Ninth Circuit — by providing no parental-consent exception.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 4 articles

3 of 4 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 3 of 4
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Meta, TikTok, Google and New York Post
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 3 of 4
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: court filing, federal lawsuits, legislation
Credits another outlet 0 of 4
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 4
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Nov 5, 23:49 UTC by New York Post, naming its source. First document in the first report, from New York Post (court filing).
Not counted 0
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Right-leaning coverage is simply more complete on what the statute actually requires of platforms. Left-leaning coverage never states that accounts for users under 16 must be deleted unless personalized feeds and autoplay are stripped, and that parents get no consent exception. Right-leaning coverage reports both rules. That gap decides whether a reader sees a narrow safety tweak or a state override of parental choice. Right-leaning coverage opens with the charge that California is trying to take over as "editor, curator and parent." Left-leaning coverage instead leads with a First Amendment suit against child online safety rules, a frame that never surfaces that parent-override claim. How will platforms verify age for every California user without collecting more personal data from adults?
Bottom line

The NY Post puts a no-veto deletion rule for under-16 accounts at the center of the three lawsuits; The Hill never moves past a First Amendment label on safety restrictions.

The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • AB 1709 requires platforms to delete under-16 accounts unless addictive features are stripped and offers no parental-consent exception, unlike 2024's SB 976 contextin NY Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Fines of up to $50,000 per affected user under 16 numberin NY Post, TechCrunch · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • EFF says the law compels platforms to collect more information from every user and invades everyone's privacy contextin TechCrunch · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Google says that in defending the prior law the state could not identify a peer-reviewed study showing personalization causes or is correlated with harm to minors contextin NY Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • All three companies are already challenging California's 2024 law SB 976 at the Ninth Circuit contextin NY Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
The Hill frames the suits as Meta, TikTok, and Google challenging a California law that seeks to tighten restrictions on child social media usage. Coverage presents the legislation as a bipartisan child-online-safety measure that would stop platforms from providing addictive features to children, while noting the companies’ argument that the law violates their First Amendment rights.
The Right View
The New York Post frames the companies as accusing California of unlawfully trying to take over the role of “editor, curator and parent” in deciding what young people see online. It foregrounds claims that the law dictates how platforms select and display content, is preempted by Section 230, and overrides parents while ignoring controls the platforms already offer. Meta is quoted saying the First Amendment protects editorial judgments and that the state is attempting to “appoint the State as the editor, curator, and controller of online speech”; Google says parents are “best positioned to make the right decisions for their families” and that overly broad laws “break the systems we’ve built to help kids find high-quality, age-appropriate videos”; TikTok calls the measure “a blatantly unconstitutional restriction on free expression” that erodes curating content based on user preferences. The Post also records Newsom describing the bill as part of the nation’s “strongest” child online-safety package and Bonta’s office pledging to defend California’s “commonsense laws to protect kids online.”
Our Take (balanced)
The companies’ strongest argument is that organizing feeds and autoplay is protected editorial speech, so a no-exception ban on those features for under-16s — backed by account deletion and steep per-minor fines — lets the government control how speech is displayed; they cite existing teen safety tools, YouTube’s default autoplay-off for minors, and the assertion that the state identified no peer-reviewed study showing personalization harms minors when defending SB 976. California’s strongest argument, as stated by Newsom and Bonta, is that restricting addictive design features is a legitimate, commonsense effort to protect children from unregulated technology rather than an act of censorship. The central unresolved tension is whether a ban on personalized feeds and autoplay for users under 16 is a child-safety regulation of product design or an unconstitutional takeover of editorial and parental judgment.

4 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.