California has been sued by a few social media giants in pushback to a law they consider violates their First Amendment rights.

In federal court, TikTok, Meta Platforms, Google, and YouTube allege that Senate Bill 976, the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, is unconstitutional because it restricts minors’ (without parental consent) access to customized feeds. It is stated that limiting personalized feeds, which define what the users will see by scrolling, controls the expression of protection and imposes restrictions that are unconstitutional in the First Amendment-protected actions.

The plaintiffs also mention that the law limits the personalized feed of a minor to an hour, irrespective of the permission of the parent, except where the parent clearly permits otherwise.

According to TikTok, “the state cannot dictate how platforms reach such editorial decisions as it can to a newspaper what articles to publish and how to publish them. That is precisely what the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act does in California.”

The aim of all the companies is the same, and that is to have the declaration that the controversial clauses of the law are not constitutional under the First Amendment and an injunction against state enforcement of the same.

The arguments by TikTok are similar to those by Meta, Google, and YouTube, which also filed suit on Thursday in the Northern District of California.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, also makes the case that personalization of content to the reader is not a new concept, and that personalized feeds resemble the practices of newspapers, pamphleteers, and online news sources that are customizing their content to the interests of the reader, such as sports websites and news sites with customized lists of stories.

“Surely, the state could not demand that museums or bookstores destroy their category rubrics and stack their works of art or books in random order without addressing the First Amendment, even though, in theory, the works are still available to their patrons.”

Google and its subsidiary YouTube contend that the recommendation of views on YouTube is pegged on the viewing history and interests of a user, which are depicted by what the user likes and dislikes. YouTube also does judgment of content after talking to experts on appropriate age content.

According to the companies that provide minors with a variety of content, they make sure that they see what is appropriate.

The companies claim that such limitations of personalized feeds impose too much on the safeguarded right of YouTube to offer its opinion about the content that it thinks will be relevant, useful, and fit just right for each specific user. They also weigh down the rights of the underage to express themselves and find content without the consent of a parent.

There has been judicial criticism of the law.

In November 2024, NetChoice, an internet trade association that takes on social media companies as members, sued to prevent the law’s enforcement by the state of California. In January, a judge provided a partial victory to NetChoice but refused to halt the majority of the law.

Google and YouTube indicate that the judge determined that NetChoice had not made a record to demonstrate unconstitutionality. The judge, furthermore, ruled that NetChoice was not competent to appeal the law on behalf of its members.

The case was brought to the Ninth Circuit, which also issued a temporary injunction preventing the state from enforcing the act pending the appeal.

But the Ninth Circuit concluded that NetChoice did not have associational issues to bring against the personalized-feed provisions of the law. It rejected its rehearing request and gave its mandate on Thursday.