meta

Technology companies Google, Meta and Tik Tok sued the state of California on Wednesday to block a new law that restricts companies from targeting children younger than 16 with “addictive” social media content that can keep them scrolling for hours.

Assembly Bill 1709, introduced by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), bars social media sites from providing features such as autoplay and recommended content displays to teenagers and young children.

The social media companies, which filed separate lawsuits in federal court, cited their 1st Amendment right to free speech and the Communications Decency Act, which protects online platforms from being sued over content posted by third parties. Meta Platforms, as well as Google and YouTube, filed lawsuits in the Northern District of California. TikTok filed in the Central District.

California’s attempt to “appoint the State as the editor, curator and controller of online speech” and “override Meta’s editorial judgment about how to curate and display these billions of posts of third-party speech,” violates the U.S. Constitution, attorneys for Meta wrote in its lawsuit. The technology company owns Instagram, Facebook and Threads.

A representative for Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said his office was reviewing the litigation.

The legal action follows successful lawsuits brought against the tech giants by California and others that have resulted in massive civil settlements. At the same time, the tech industry continues to file legal challenges to block state efforts to rein in social media companies.

Lowenthal said earlier this year he was inspired to seek more safeguards for social media users, citing the anxiety and depression among children who grew up with access to cellphones, tablets and computer screens.

The addictive nature of autoplay and other features is “harmful, full stop, and that they’re not appropriate for the developing brain,” Lowenthal said.

Tech industry groups opposed Lowentha’s bill, arguing it would hamper users’ ability to connect with family and friends.

Meta and others sued last year over Senate Bill 976, a similar bill known as “Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act” that bars addictive feeds and certain features to minors without parental consent. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals likely will hear arguments in the case next spring, Courthouse News Services reported last month.

Both Senate Bill 976 and Assembly Bill 1709 go into effect on Jan. 1.

TikTok, in its lawsuit filed Wednesday, argues that AB 1709 essentially overrides SB 976, preventing a social media site from providing “addictive features,” even if parents consent to a minor’s use of the features. The company also argued it has restrictions in place to protect teens.

“The consequence is that a parent who has reviewed TikTok’s platform, linked her account to her fifteen-year-old’s account through Family Pairing, set a 30-minute daily screen-limit, enabled Restricted Mode, and concluded that a personalized For You feed introducing her daughter to new musicians and science educators is appropriate for her family has no ability under California law to make that choice,” Tik Tok’s attorneys wrote. “Nor does the fifteen-year-old daughter have any say in her online expression.”

California is home to some of the biggest social media companies, who increasingly are facing lawsuits over their products. California was among dozens of states that sued Meta in 2023, alleging it designed harmful and addictive features to hook children while misleading the public about the dangers. Some of the harms included depression, anxiety, addiction and body image issues as young people compare themselves to others on social media.

Meta agreed to pay up to $17 billion and make changes to its Facebook and Instagram platforms, including hiding likes and reactions and blocking teens from using extreme makeup filters. The company also said it would enact a default two-hour daily time limit that teens can turn off only with parental permission, mute notifications during school hours and implement a night access mode that blocks its apps from midnight to 6 a.m.

In another landmark case, a Los Angeles jury in March found that Instagram and YouTube were responsible for the suffering of a Chico, Calif., woman who charged the platforms were addictive by design. The 20-year-old, who was awarded $6 million damages, said she became hooked on YouTube and Instagram in grade school.

It was less than a month before the Nov. 3 election when Los Angeles city attorney front-runner Marissa Roy realized she’d missed her lucky manicure.

A deputy attorney general in the California Department of Justice, she had scarcely slept since her team clinched its historic $17-billion settlement with Meta in August. She’d been canvassing hundreds of voters and sounding out scores of deputy city attorneys in her bid to transform the troubled office where she’d launched her career in 2017 into the “largest public interest law firm” in L.A.

Between filming TikTok spots and prepping for formal debates, Roy has been fine-tuning her plans to avenge exploited tenants and claw back stolen wages, tame runaway civil liability, protect victims of child abuse and domestic violence, and join other elected attorneys in lawsuits against the Trump administration.

Nails didn’t make the cut.

“There’s just been too much to do,” Roy said of the chrome gel ritual she inaugurated as a volunteer for Eunisses Hernandez in 2022.

Marissa Roy outside L.A. City Hall. “I wanted the slogan ‘let’s sue it’ — that was violently nixed,” she said of her campaign.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Seen one way, Roy’s talismanic manicure is an object lesson for her fiercest critics: all flash and no substance, evidence the 34-year-old lacks the “gravitas” to be among the state’s most powerful elected lawyers.

But like the iridescent glitter in her campaign-matched chrome polish, the meaning shifts with the viewer’s perspective.

To supporters on the city’s restive left and the clique of California city attorneys eager to add Roy to their group chat, it’s a winking show of solidarity burnished through years of knocking on doors for fellow up-and-coming progressives. It was metallic blue for Hernandez, silver for Ysabel Jurado and ultraviolet for her own historic primary upset in June. Her backers see fierce loyalty reflected in the polish, a ritual she started while hunting salon wage thieves to sue.

“I wanted the slogan ‘let’s sue it’ — that was violently nixed,” Roy said of her campaign.

With her Democratic Socialists of America sass, bright amethyst blazers and Bollywood needle drops on Instagram, the lifelong Angeleno cuts a stark contrast to her rival, Deputy Dist. Atty. John McKinney, 58, who leapfrogged to a second-place finish in the primaries amid a stoic, law-and-order campaign that sometimes slipped into Spencer Pratt-style dystopian imagery.

McKinney’s boosters point to his extraordinary biography — from penniless orphan to director of special prosecutions in the country’s largest district attorney’s office — and celebrated courtroom prowess as evidence he is better suited to handle the 120,000 violations referred to the city attorney for potential charges every year.

“John has the experience, stature, reputation, and gravitas to do the job and will be both effective and respected,” said former Los Angeles City Atty. Burt Pines. “I do not have the same confidence in her.”

Campaign materials for the Los Angeles city attorney candidate at a canvassing event in Silverlake.

(Gary Coronado / For The Times)

Roy’s allies counter that prosecuting misdemeanors is only a third of the city attorney’s job — and typically the less complex part. Whereas McKinney has never worked a civil case, Roy has managed multicity litigation and shares the credit for legal victories no attorney could secure alone. In the Meta case, Roy and her team had argued that the social media giant had intentionally designed its products to hook young children and repeatedly misled the public about known risks.

“She was one of the original four team members in California that stayed up until 2 a.m. filing the [Meta] complaint,” said California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta. “She helped develop our legal strategy, particularly our deception theory, which was our core theory of legal liability for the case.”

Similarly, while McKinney’s camp paints a lawman of singular personal ability, Roy supporters describe her as brilliant, driven, and eager to lift the best and brightest around her.

“She is tenacious and works around the clock,” said San Francisco City Atty. David Chiu.

She’s also infamously bubbly: When a canvasser door-knocked 9th Circuit Judge Richard Paez, for whom Roy had clerked, he reportedly asked the volunteer to give her a hug.

“She has a natural enthusiasm about her that is infectious,” said Mark Ramos, chair of Los Angeles County Democratic Party. “She’s [always] shown up, and showing up matters.”

Which matters more — individual virtue or collaborative ingenuity — now in effect divides the race for the most abstruse job in local politics: Four of L.A’s former city attorneys have endorsed McKinney, while California’s current top elected lawyers have largely lined up behind Roy.

A head-to-head match with McKinney was not what Roy envisioned last year when she launched her campaign to unseat the incumbent city attorney, Hydee Feldstein Soto. After charming L.A.’s major power brokers, she had hoped to win the primary outright and avoid a runoff so she could focus exclusively on the Meta trial in August.

“I had been planning for things to end in June,” she said.

Feldstein Soto was bogged down by scandal and soaring civil liability costs for the city. She also faced criticism for ducking challenges to President Trump’s policies, including the deployment of military troops to Los Angeles last year, a fight the city joined but did not lead.

By early spring, Roy had racked up endorsements from the state’s legal elites and leftist kingmaker Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). She earned the imprimatur of the city’s powerful Democratic clubs and its influential labor unions, while enjoying widespread support from a democratic socialist base.

Marissa Roy, left, candidate for Los Angeles city attorney, and Alyssa Acevedo, with Service Employees International Union canvass in Silverlake.

(Gary Coronado / For The Times)

L.A. voters want “the transformational leadership that they’re seeing in [New York Mayor Zohran] Mamdani, and also in Mayor [Daniel] Lurie in San Francisco,” said L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, a longtime friend of Roy’s and among her earliest endorsers. “Angelenos are increasingly impatient in wanting to see that change come to their city, too.”

Then, in April, Feldstein Soto slipped from unpopular to politically radioactive after hackers stole thousands of LAPD files from her office. That inspired a late-breaking police union endorsement and a surge of corporate cash for McKinney, boosting him to a second-place finish and knocking out Feldstein Soto in a historic rout.

McKinney touts the city attorney’s prosecutor role as a means to stem quality-of-life crimes and curb homelessness. Roy has promised to keep more Angelenos housed and protect their livelihoods through “affirmative litigation” — suits brought against slumlords and exploitative corporations under the state’s Unfair Competition Law.

“When you file these suits, you have complete discretion,” said Pines, the former city attorney who successfully lobbied the state to extend Los Angeles that power in 1977 and watched in dismay as Feldstein Soto left it to whither.

In recent years, affirmative litigation has become an essential tool for defending against punitive federal policy and recovering public funds, Pines and others said.

Seeing the San Francisco city attorney’s office sue to overturn California’s ban on gay marriage — a law that would have stymied her gay younger brother — inspired Roy to give up her elementary school dream of decoding ancient texts to pursue the law.

“Childhood Marissa spent recesses in the library buried in books about ancient Egypt,” Roy said. “It was San Francisco suing — that was when I began to become aware of the power of lawyers.”

Unlike her opponent, Roy grew up comfortably in Monrovia, largely shielded from the sacrifices her family made to afford her an elite education. The daughter of an Indian immigrant mother and a white American father, she graduated from Flintridge Prep and attended University of Southern California on scholarship.

While studying law at Yale, she interned in the affirmative litigation department in the San Francisco city attorney’s office — a program Chiu lauded as “an essential training ground for the next generation of government lawyers” in a recent law review article.

Roy and her supporters say those early experiences cemented her commitment to teamwork, which is central to the less glamorous, more costly side of the city attorney’s job: serving as general counsel for myriad city agencies and legal advisor to City Hall.

“There’s absolutely more collaboration and it’s more significant given the things we’re up against,” said San Diego City Atty. Heather Ferbert, a close ally of Roy’s.

John McKinney, a Los Angeles County prosecutor running against Marissa Roy to become L.A. city attorney, speaks during a news conference on May 5, 2026.

(Kayla Bartkowski/Los Angeles Times)

Ferbert and others pointed to a surge in lawsuits against municipalities over everything from sidewalk trip-and-falls to police misconduct — cases that can lead to seven- or eight-figure payouts.

“If it’s not extremely unusual, it doesn’t make it to the city attorney’s desk,” said Oakland City Atty. Ryan Richardson, who endorsed Roy.

As a deputy city attorney, Roy spearheaded a trio of major wage-theft suits just a month after she was admitted to the bar. Independent expenditure groups supporting McKinney spent more than $350,000 trying to strip her of that title because she was paid by a nonprofit — an common arrangement employed by government law offices across the U.S. — while the city attorney’s office itself gave her permission to use it, and lists her as such in its court filings.

McKinney has since sought to paint Roy as the second coming of George Gascón, the polarizing district attorney who was drubbed in 2024 — a move that assumes most voters are still thinking about Gascón, or are likely to see the graying “godfather of progressive prosecutors” in a raven-haired deputy attorney general.

“The only way you disprove that is by putting your head down and doing the work 10 times harder,” Roy said. “Voters are smarter than that. People in the coalition see these tactics and are tired of them too.”

Class action could be first in Australia to blame social media for harming its users.

Meta and its social media platforms Facebook and Instagram are facing a class action lawsuit in Australia over allegations that addictive design features are harming children and teenagers.

The lawsuit, filed by MinterEllison in the Australian Federal Court, seeks to recover compensation for current and former users of Facebook and Instagram who claim they were exposed to harmful content or developed an addiction to social media as a result of using those platforms, the law firm said in a statement released on Thursday.

“This proceeding raises important questions about the design and operation of social media platforms and their impact on children and teenagers in Australia. Those questions will now be considered through the Federal Court process,” MinterEllison Partner William Nolan said in the statement.

The class action suit was filed on behalf of eight plaintiffs who allege they were harmed by Meta while they were below the age of 18.

In a suppression order on Monday, the court prohibited the reporting of any information that could reveal their identities and the statement of claim.

“We are aware of this claim and we will defend ourselves vigorously,” a Meta spokesperson said.

Litigation Lending Services said it was funding the class action for Australian families who “would have no practical means of pursuing these claims against a global technology giant”.

The lawsuit comes amid rising tensions between Australia and Big Tech after a world-first ban on social media for children below 16 in 2025, and newly proposed rules that could let users switch off algorithm-driven content on their feeds.

Meta agreed in August to pay $18bn to settle with nearly all US states to resolve claims that it designed social media to addict children.

Meta, the company behind Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp has been hit with the largest ever fine against it for its business practices.

A judge in New Mexico on Wednesday ordered the company to pay $25bn (£18.6bn) following a two week trial earlier this year that found it had spent years lying to the public about how it handled Facebook user data.

“The lies extend beyond Facebook’s data practices as well,” the judge said, adding they went to “the heart of Facebook’s core business practices.”

The fine is the largest to date against Meta, which has either been fined or agreed to settle several other lawsuits this year, including an $18bn deal with California over child safety.

The lawsuit stemmed from the role of Meta, then known as Facebook, in what became known as the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

That firm utilized data and information from millions of Facebook users as part of its work in political consulting, including on work related to the 2016 US Presidential election, which saw Donald Trump elected for the first time.

The US Federal Trade Commission in 2019 levied a $5bn fine against the company over its data privacy practices.

Lawyers for New Mexico sued the company over many statements Meta executives had made over the years that user data was never shared with or accessed by third parties without a user’s permission, when in reality it had been.

They claimed that the entire population of the state, roughly 2 million people, was impacted by Meta’s dishonesty regarding the way it controlled user data. A jury found that Meta had violated state laws more than 40 million times.

“For too long, powerful technology companies have operated as though their size and influence put them beyond the reach of the law,” New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez said Wednesday.

“Today’s result makes clear that no corporation is too powerful to be held accountable.”

The state lawyers sought up to $40bn in fines against Meta. Meta had argued anything beyond $3.4bn would be unconstitutional.

Judge Francis Mathew on Wednesday was direct in his decision to fine Meta an amount roughly equal to its profits each quarter.

He said Meta’s violations of law and misrepresentations to the public about how their Facebook data was used and shared were “willful” and spanned “more than 11 years,” stretching from 2010 to 2021.

Communications between senior executives, including Mark Zuckerberg, were “designed to mislead the public,” Judge Mathew wrote in his order.

While the full amount of the penalty against Meta, based on thousands of violations of state law, was calculated as $219bn, Judge Mathew reduced the penalty to the $25bn fine.

A spokesperson for Meta did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

New Mexico has been one of Meta’s most notable adversaries in court. The state this year also fined Meta almost $1bn for misleading the public about the safety of its social media platforms for children.

The judge overseeing that lawsuit ultimately compared Meta to an industrial polluter of the air, with its form of pollution being “the psychological harm and sexual exploitation of children.”

California and several other states had collectively sued Meta over similar issues related to a lack of child safety features on Meta’s platforms and resulting harms to children.

Meta and the states reached a mutual settlement deal, which did not include a fine or any admission of wrongdoing, to end that case only a few days into what was expected to be a multi-week trial.

The messages, reported by a Brazilian daily, say the platform recommended Bolsonaro’s profile and his WhatsApp channel.

Employees at Meta have acknowledged in internal communications that the Instagram accounts of Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva were negatively affected by restrictions during the country’s election, media reports say.

The messages, reported on Friday by Brazilian daily Folha de S Paulo, also acknowledged the platform recommended the profile of Lula challenger Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, as well as his WhatsApp channel. Folha, the Sao Paulo-based paper, cited messages it had reviewed.

Meta told the Reuters news agency that the technical issues cited in the report were already public and the conversations it referenced related solely to the severity of the issues, not political interference.

“Any suggestion that Meta favors one side is false,” it added in a statement.

Lula, the left-wing incumbent, will face right-wing challenger Bolsonaro in a presidential runoff on October 25, following a stronger-than-expected performance by the senator in the first-round vote earlier this month.

Friday’s report came on the heels of a Brazilian court ruling on Thursday that ordered Meta to immediately adopt measures to provide equal treatment of the two candidates ahead of the runoff.

The ruling by a judge in Brazil’s top electoral court was made shortly after Lula filed a complaint that accused the tech giant – which owns Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp – of using biased algorithms and AI restrictions to favour opposition candidate Bolsonaro ahead of the election.

Justice Marco Aurelio Bellizze ruled that Meta cannot reduce the distribution of political content, restrict searches or remove posts in a way that creates an imbalance between Lula and Bolsonaro. His ruling also orders the company to ensure its artificial intelligence tool applies identical criteria to both candidacies.

Bellizze said in his ruling that Meta must pay a fine of 500,000 reais ($98,700) per day if it fails to comply.

According to Lula’s party, some of his posts appeared without a share button and had reduced reach. Options for reactions, sharing, audio or accelerated speed were also missing.

Mexico will require the digital platforms to protect minors from violent and sexual content.

Mexican ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠President Claudia ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sheinbaum signed a presidential decree requiring digital platforms, including TikTok, Meta and X, to protect children from violent, sexual and other harmful content online.

The decree establishes that digital platforms must, by design, restrict exposure to content involving violence, harassment or sexual abuse, as well as immediately remove any risky material from the profiles of minors.

Sheinbaum said on Wednesday that the government would back legislation to penalise companies that fail to implement the decree.

“If no progress is made, it would become a law,” she told a news conference on Tuesday.

“The goal is for digital platforms to take on some of the responsibility and refrain from disseminating, promoting, or spreading content related to this type of information — including criminal acts or violent behaviour,” Sheinbaum had said earlier when she indicated she would introduce the decree.

The decree comes after an attack by two 18-year-olds on their former high school in the northern ‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌state of Coahuila in early October that killed one and wounded three others.

Digital platforms will have one month to comply with the decree, government adviser Luisa Maria Alcalde said.

Officials said they had already discussed the matter with representatives of social media outlets and streaming platforms such as Meta, Microsoft, Apple, TikTok, Google, X and Huawei.

Last August, Meta, for example, agreed to pay an $18bn settlement in a major US federal case accusing it of endangering children, and was forced to introduce new safety features to platforms including Instagram and Facebook. The lawsuit alleged Meta had violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act by collecting, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠retaining, and using personal data from children under 13 without proper parental consent.

Mexico’s move follows a broader global push to protect minors online, with governments in Europe and Australia tightening oversight of digital platforms and US states pursuing a range of child-safety measures.

Brazil has also moved to strengthen protections for children online. Such measures have raised questions over how to protect minors while safeguarding privacy and freedom of expression.