California lawmakers are charging forward with a controversial plan to ban children below 16 from TikTok, Instagram and different social media platforms — clearing a significant hurdle regardless of a rising refrain of critics.
The bipartisan invoice, AB-1709, handed out of Committee final week with overwhelming help, placing California one step nearer to a sweeping crackdown that will dramatically reshape how teenagers log on.
The proposal would successfully yank minors below 16 off platforms filled with so-called “addictive options” — suppose limitless scrolling, autoplay movies and fixed notifications — except corporations overhaul how their apps work.
Backers say it’s lengthy overdue.
Assemblyman Josh Lowenthal (D-Lengthy Seashore), who launched the invoice, warns social media corporations have “unfettered entry to weak, growing minds” and have made “design selections that malignantly goal customers’ neurological techniques, resulting in habit, despair, and, in grave circumstances, demise.”
He argues the measure is required to confront what he calls an “evolving public well being disaster” pushed by Massive Tech.
If handed, corporations can be pressured to confirm customers’ ages and delete accounts belonging to children below 16 — or face penalties.
The invoice has already cleared two committees in a matter of days and is on monitor for a full Meeting vote subsequent month. Gov. Gavin Newsom has signaled help, and Lowenthal is betting bipartisan momentum will carry it into regulation by summer season.
The push comes as eye-popping stats present simply how glued teenagers are to their screens. Surveys from Pew Analysis Middle discovered most teenagers are on YouTube and TikTok day by day, with big numbers additionally hooked on Instagram and Snapchat — and as much as 16% admit they’re on-line “nearly consistently.”
Even some teenagers say it’s an issue.
Nonetheless, not everyone seems to be shopping for Sacramento’s repair.
Opponents — together with privateness advocates, tech business teams and even some Democrats — warn the invoice might backfire, trampling free speech and parental rights within the course of.
Jaime Huff, head of the Civil Justice Affiliation of California, blasted the plan as unconstitutional overreach.
“Defending children on-line is essential, however banning minors from broad swaths of the web shouldn’t be the reply,” she stated, arguing the proposal “substitutes a blunt authorities mandate for the protections households really want,” like parental controls.
Critics say the measure would strip households of the power to determine what’s greatest for their very own children, changing it with a one-size-fits-all authorities rule.
Widespread Sense Media CEO Jim Steyer insists the invoice doesn’t censor children — it targets the tech itself.
“This invoice prohibits platforms that use addictive feeds from permitting kids below 16 to carry accounts,” he stated. “We’re regulating how these multi-billion-dollar platforms can goal them via predatory product design.”
Steyer framed the combat as David vs. Goliath — mother and father versus tech titans armed with armies of engineers fine-tuning apps to maintain children hooked.
“No guardian can compete,” he stated.
California wouldn’t be the primary to strive. Florida has already handed an analogous regulation for youthful teenagers — although it’s now tied up in court docket.
Social media platforms eliminated 4.7 million accounts after Australia banned them for kids youthful than 16 on the finish of final 12 months.
