Pull to refresh
Logo
California bans addictive social media features for users under 16

California bans addictive social media features for users under 16

Rule Changes

Newsom signs 13-bill package with first-in-nation AI companion chatbot safety rules

Yesterday: National coverage spreads after signing

Overview

Updated 16 hours ago

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed 13 child-safety bills on Sept 10 that bar social media platforms from offering addictive features to users under 16. The laws target autoplay and algorithmic feeds built around a user's history and profile. They take effect January 1 unless courts block them.

The package also creates the nation's first comprehensive rules for AI companion chatbots. Adam's Law, named for Adam Raine, a teenager who died by suicide, requires crisis protocols, parental controls, and annual child-safety audits. Chatbots must tell young users when they are not talking to a human.

Why it matters

If the law holds, millions of American teens lose autoplay and algorithmic feeds by default, forcing platforms to redesign for young users.

Questions about this story

Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.

No questions yet — be the first to ask.

Key Indicators

13
Bills in the child safety package
Signed into law as one package on Sept 10.
Under 16
Age cutoff for the addictive features ban
Platforms can't show autoplay or algorithmic feeds to users under 16.
$18B
Meta's child safety settlement (prior context)
Meta agreed in August 2026 to pay states up to $18 billion to settle child safety lawsuits.
4 years
Ban on AI companion chatbot toys
The package bars manufacturing and selling toys with companion chatbots for four years.

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

Ever wondered what historical figures would say about today's headlines?

Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.

Play

Exploring all sides of a story is often best achieved with Play.

Most of these play right now — no account needed. Sign up to save scores, keep a streak, and unlock Debate and Predict. Log in Sign Up
Predict 4 ways this could play out. Back the one you believe — contrarian picks score more when a scenario has a resolution date. Log in to play

People Involved

Organizations Involved

Timeline

August 2026 September 2026

4 events Latest: Yesterday
Tap a bar to jump to that date
  1. National coverage spreads after signing

    Latest Media

    Reddit and national outlets highlight California's bans on addictive features and chatbot rules.

  2. Newsom signs 13-bill child safety package

    Law

    Governor signs laws banning addictive features for under-16s and requiring chatbot safety audits.

  3. AI researchers warn of risk

    Statement

    Current and former Anthropic and OpenAI researchers warned of existential AI risks.

Scenarios

1

California child-safety laws face court challenge

Uncertain Resolves by Jan 1, 2027

Discussed by: Ed Howard of the Children's Advocacy Institute; legal observers cited by CalMatters

Tech platforms argue algorithmic feeds are protected speech and file suit before the laws take effect. If a federal court grants a preliminary injunction, platforms can keep serving algorithmic content to teens in California while the case proceeds.

2

Other states copy California's child safety rules

Possible Resolves by Jan 1, 2028

Discussed by: CalMatters; state legislators with active child-safety agendas

Statehouses adopt versions of AB 1709 and Adam's Law, especially where platforms face ongoing lawsuits. A multi-state coalition would pressure platforms to change national defaults rather than customizing per state.

3

Federal government passes nationwide child safety rules

Unlikely Resolves by Jan 20, 2028

Discussed by: Politico; Gov. Gavin Newsom

Newsom has called on Washington to go beyond California's rules. A national law would preempt the state patchwork and give federal regulators enforcement power, but congressional action on tech regulation has stalled for years.

4

Age verification failures stall California's under-16 feed ban

Possible Resolves by Q2 2027

Discussed by: The Next Web

The feed ban works only if platforms can reliably tell how old users are. Age assurance has failed in every previous attempt, and California's announcement did not specify how it would work or who enforces it.

Historical Context

3 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.

October 1998 – April 2000

COPPA (1998)

The US Children's Online Privacy Protection Act restricted sites from collecting personal data from kids under 13, requiring parental consent. It took effect in 2000.

Then

Sites added age gates and parental consent flows; enforcement was uneven for years.

Now

COPPA set the baseline for child privacy online but never addressed addictive design or algorithmic recommendation.

Why this matters now

California's package extends the US approach from data privacy into product design, a shift COPPA never made.

October 2023 – 2025

UK Online Safety Act (2023)

Britain's law imposed a duty of care on platforms to protect children, with fines up to 10% of global revenue for failures. Ofcom began enforcing it in 2025, requiring platforms to run child-safety risk assessments.

Then

Platforms changed default settings and added age checks; some sued over content definitions.

Now

Set a global template for platform 'duty of care' duties, which California's audit requirements echo.

Why this matters now

Highlights how design-focused regulation works in practice, and the litigation platforms use to delay it.

November 2024 – December 2025

Australia's social media under-16 ban (2024-2025)

Australia passed a law in late 2024 banning social media platforms from serving users under 16, among the strictest age-based restrictions anywhere. Platforms faced fines in the tens of millions of dollars for non-compliance.

Then

Platforms said they would comply; age-verification systems drew privacy complaints.

Now

Australia became the reference point for state-led age gating, and several countries followed with similar proposals.

Why this matters now

Shows both the political appeal of age-based platform bans and the messy enforcement that follows.

Sources

(11)