Meta, Google and TikTok have spent years telling parents that they care about children’s safety online. Recently, California passed a law restricting some of the features children use, and suddenly the companies have discovered several problems with protection.
Ain’t that a surprise!
The three technology companies have filed separate lawsuits to block California’s Assembly Bill 1709. The law, which is due to take effect in 2027, prohibits platforms from providing personalised feeds, endless scrolling and autoplay to users under 16. These are the features that make it surprisingly easy to open an app for five minutes and look up an hour later wondering what happened.
Under the law, platforms would also have to delete the accounts and personal information of children who receive access to those features. California believes the restrictions will help protect young users from designs that encourage compulsive use.
According to TheWrap, Meta, Google and TikTok argue that the law violates their constitutional rights. The companies say platforms have the right to organise, recommend and present content to users. Google claims removing personalised feeds could prevent children from finding videos suited to their interests and developmental needs. TikTok has described the law as an unconstitutional restriction on expression.
Now there is a legal argument to consider here. Governments should not control what people see online without proper scrutiny. And personalised recommendations can help users discover educational, creative and entertaining content. But if we pretended that these systems exist only to help children find useful videos, we would be rather naive.
Personalised feeds keep people watching, period. Autoplay removes the decision to begin another video, while endless scrolling makes sure there is never a natural place to stop. These features have enormous commercial value because more time on the platform means more opportunities to collect information and display advertising.
That makes the lawsuits uncomfortable.
The companies appear to be saying that restricting addictive design prevents them from presenting content properly. But parents may hear something slightly different. They may hear that the platforms cannot operate as effectively if children receive opportunities to put down their phones. California’s law may still face legitimate legal challenges. Courts will need to decide whether it protects children without violating broader rights. Meta, Google and TikTok also deserve the opportunity to make their arguments.
But the companies must answer a simpler question as well.
If their platforms are safe for children, why do they rely so heavily on features designed to make leaving difficult? Parents cannot supervise every swipe, recommendation and automatically played video. Technology companies built these systems and understand exactly how they work.
They should not require a court order before accepting responsibility for what those systems do.
