California lawmakers are charging ahead with a controversial plan to ban kids under 16 from TikTok, Instagram and other social media platforms — clearing a major hurdle despite a growing chorus of critics.
The bipartisan bill, AB-1709, passed out of Committee last week with overwhelming support, putting California one step closer to a sweeping crackdown that would dramatically reshape how teens go online.
The proposal would effectively yank minors under 16 off platforms packed with so-called “addictive features” — think endless scrolling, autoplay videos and constant notifications — unless companies overhaul how their apps work.
Backers say it’s long overdue.
Assemblyman Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), who introduced the bill, warns social media firms have “unfettered access to vulnerable, developing minds” and have made “design choices that malignantly target users’ neurological systems, leading to addiction, depression, and, in grave circumstances, death.”
He argues the measure is needed to confront what he calls an “evolving public health crisis” driven by Big Tech.
If passed, companies would be forced to verify users’ ages and delete accounts belonging to kids under 16 — or face penalties.
The bill has already cleared two committees in a matter of days and is on track for a full Assembly vote next month. Gov. Gavin Newsom has signaled support, and Lowenthal is betting bipartisan momentum will carry it into law by summer.
The push comes as eye-popping stats show just how glued teens are to their screens. Surveys from Pew Research Center found most teens are on YouTube and TikTok daily, with huge numbers also hooked on Instagram and Snapchat — and up to 16% admit they’re online “almost constantly.”
Even some teens say it’s a problem.
Still, not everyone is buying Sacramento’s fix.
Opponents — including privacy advocates, tech industry groups and even some Democrats — warn the bill could backfire, trampling free speech and parental rights in the process.
Jaime Huff, head of the Civil Justice Association of California, blasted the plan as unconstitutional overreach.
“Protecting kids online is important, but banning minors from broad swaths of the internet is not the answer,” she said, arguing the proposal “substitutes a blunt government mandate for the protections families actually need,” like parental controls.
Critics say the measure would strip families of the ability to decide what’s best for their own kids, replacing it with a one-size-fits-all government rule.
Common Sense Media CEO Jim Steyer insists the bill doesn’t censor kids — it targets the tech itself.
“This bill prohibits platforms that use addictive feeds from allowing children under 16 to hold accounts,” he said. “We are regulating how these multi-billion-dollar platforms can target them through predatory product design.”
Steyer framed the fight as David vs. Goliath — parents versus tech titans armed with armies of engineers fine-tuning apps to keep kids hooked.
“No parent can compete,” he said.
California wouldn’t be the first to try. Florida has already passed a similar law for younger teens — though it’s now tied up in court.
Social media platforms removed 4.7 million accounts after Australia banned them for children younger than 16 at the end of last year.