Amending AB 1709 Doesn’t Fix It: California’s Social Media Ban Still Threatens Free Speech and Privacy

Amending AB 1709 Doesn’t Fix It: California’s Social Media Ban Still Threatens Free Speech and Privacy

California lawmakers have amendedA.B. 1709, but the core problem remains: the bill is still aban on social media access for youth under 16, and it still threatens theprivacyandFirst Amendmentrights of all Californians.

Proponents of the bill may argue that the recent amendments represent acompromise, but a close look at the text shows no major changes. As the bill moves forward in the Senate, we must continue to urge lawmakers to vote NO.

Take Action: Tell Your Senator to OPPOSE A.B. 1709

A "Compromise" That Still Denies Access

Under the newly amended Section 22683, platforms are prohibited from offering "addictive features" to users under 16. A platform can allow a minor to keep an account only if it strips away these features, which include what the bill calls "addictive feeds," auto-play, and anything else the Attorney General designates in future rulemaking.

However, the bill defines "addictive feeds" so broadly that it covers virtually every functional recommendation algorithm. The bill applies this label to any presentation of user-generated content recommended "in whole or in part, on information provided by the user." That includes basic inputs like who a user follows, what posts they like, or their self-expressed interests. By calling these basic tools and features “addictive," the bill also makes broad conclusions about theunsettled sciencebehind social media use, youth, and addiction.

Because almost every major social media service uses automated feeds to deliver content, the end result of AB 1709 remains the same: young people under 16 will be denied access to major social media services as they currently exist.

Even if a platform attempts to comply by stripping away recommendation systems for minors, this still violates the First Amendment. Recommendation systems are the primary tools that users rely on to find speech and disseminate their own. Forcing young people onto a stripped-down, dysfunctional version of social media burdens their constitutionalright to access information and participate in public discourse.

AB 1709 Still Forces Invasive Age Verification

The amendments do not eliminate the privacy threats posed by age gating. Although the bill references theage-signaling framework in AB 1043, Section 22684 explicitly states that a covered platform "shall verify the age of a user” and makes platforms liable every time a person under 16 makes it through an age check.

Because AB 1043 does not actually specify how verification should occur without requiring additional proof, AB 1709 will, in practice, force platforms to implement the strictest forms of age verification. To comply, platforms will likely require users to upload government-issued IDs or submit to biometric scanning. Forcing users to turn over their personal information will create massivehoneypots of sensitive personal data, destroying onlineanonymityand exposing users of all ages tosecurity breaches.And relying on biometric systems to verify users’ ages isproblematicbecause the systems have historically had high error rates estimating ages acrossrace and gender lines.

Take Action: Tell Your Senator to OPPOSE A.B. 1709

Lawmakers Must Reject AB 1709

The amendments to AB 1709 also introduce legal confusion, creating provisions that conflict with already enacted legislation likeSB 976. Rather than providing clarity or protecting young people, AB 1709 creates a tangled regulatory scheme that sacrifices constitutional rights for political grandstanding.

Denying minors access to digital forums—or stripping those forums of the basic tools needed to navigate them—is censorship. California should not set a national precedent of cutting young people off from digital lifelines, communities, and speech.

We need to keep the pressure on as AB 1709 moves through the Senate. Contact your state senator today and tell them that minor tweaks to a bad bill do not make it good policy.

Related Issues

Related Updates

The Senate Commerce Committee is set to considerS. 737, the SCREEN Act, a sweeping age-verification bill that would require online services to verify users’ ages before they can access any sexually explicit content. If this bill passes, it will force millions of adult internet users to give up...

Several U.S. states are pushing to ban young people from social media entirely. This marks the latest wave of censorship bills masquerading as “children’s online safety” measures, with states likeMassachusetts,Idaho,Minnesota,North Carolina,South Carolina,Illinois, and EFF’s home state of...

After public outrage, California lawmakers are moving closer to exempting open-source operating systems from the sweeping age-bracketing regime mandated by last year’s Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043). Nonetheless, the current bill still jeopardizes internet users’ speech, privacy, and security.While the open source exemption, if passed, would improve the law,...

As statehouses ramp up for 2026, we’re seeing a familiar and concerning trend of lawmakers rushing to regulate the internet based on shockingly shaky science. From theCalifornia State Assemblyto theMassachusettsandMinnesotalegislatures, a wave of bills is crashing against the digital lives...

Update, May 11, 2026:Utah has agreed to not enforce the VPN law until Sept. 3, 2026 after Aylo, the parent company of Pornhub.com, challenged the law in court.For the last couple of years, we’ve watched the same predictable cycle play out across the globe: a state (or country) passes...

Related Issues

Back to top

Follow EFF:

Check out our 4-star rating onCharity Navigator.

Contact

About

Issues

Updates

Press

Donate