The Profitability of Addiction: Why Big Tech is Fighting for the Under-16 Market

Let's be clear: when Big Tech speaks about 'free expression' and 'parental rights,' they aren't talking about the liberation of the youth. They are talking about the preservation of the feed.

As TechCrunch first reported, Meta, Google, and TikTok have launched lawsuits against California Attorney General Rob Bonta to block AB 1709. Signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in September, the law targets the very mechanisms that make social media addictive for users under 16: autoplay videos and personalized feeds. If these companies don't disable these features for minors, they face fines of up to $50,000 per affected user. In a move that highlights the stakes, the law requires platforms to delete the accounts of users under 16 who do not have these features turned off.

In their legal filings, the companies have leaned heavily on the First Amendment. Meta argues that the law overrides its editorial decisions on content display and claims that Section 230 preempts the legislation. A TikTok spokesperson described the law as a "blatantly unconstitutional restriction on free expression," comparing their algorithmic curation to the practices of streaming services, TV networks, and bookstores.

But look at the mechanism. The law doesn't ban the internet; it bans the algorithmic loop. By prohibiting personalized feeds and autoplay, AB 1709 strikes at the heart of the data-harvesting model. Meta's own lawsuit admits that the Act would make it unlawful to disseminate speech to minors unless the company changes these specific practices. For these platforms, the 'editorial decision' isn't about art or journalism—it's about the efficiency of the addiction engine.

Google has attempted to frame this as a matter of parental autonomy. A Google spokesperson noted that YouTube's autoplay is off for minors by default and that parents can disable access to Shorts. They argue that "overly broad laws" break the systems they have built to help children find age-appropriate content.

Ironically, the platforms are not the only ones criticizing the bill. Rindala Alajaji, Associate Director of State Affairs at EFF, warned in a press briefing that AB 1709 could actually increase surveillance. Alajaji noted that the law compels platforms to collect more data from every user through age verification checks, further concentrating power in the hands of tech companies. Alajaji also pointed out that such restrictions silence young activists, citing the global reach of Greta Thunberg and the March for Our Lives movement led by Parkland shooting survivors.

Despite these privacy concerns, the platforms' desperation to maintain access is evident. Meta recently agreed to a settlement of up to $18 billion to resolve children's safety claims brought by 29 U.S. states. With Australia becoming the first country to ban social media for users under 16 in December 2025, and France facing its own legal battles over similar laws, California represents a critical frontline.

Attorney General Bonta's office remains committed to defending what they call "commonsense laws to protect kids online." For the tech giants, however, the fight isn't about the kids—it's about ensuring the pipeline remains open.