California bans addictive social media features for users under 16
Rule ChangesNewsom signs 13-bill package with first-in-nation AI companion chatbot safety rules
Today: National coverage spreads after signingNew here? Follow stories to track developments over time. Create a free account to get updates when stories you care about change.
Overview
Updated 46 minutes agoCalifornia Gov. Gavin Newsom signed 13 child-safety bills Thursday 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.
The same package creates the nation's first comprehensive rules for AI companion chatbots. Adam's Law, named for teenager Adam Raine who died by suicide, requires crisis protocols, parental controls, and annual child-safety audits.
The laws take effect January 1 unless courts block them. Enforcement will hinge on how many resources state regulators devote to auditing platforms and punishing violations.
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
Voices
Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.
Play
Exploring all sides of a story is often best achieved with Play.
Higher or Lower
A number from this story, against one from elsewhere in the news — guess which is bigger, then keep the chain going. 5 rounds, 3 strikes; a miss costs a strike and resets your streak.
Keyboard: ↓/L lower · ↑/H higher
0 points — sign up to put that on the leaderboard.
Connections
Sixteen names from the news. Find the four hidden groups of four. Four mistakes max.
Sign up to keep a daily streak — a new puzzle lands every day.
Exit debate?
Your progress in this debate will be lost.
- 1 Two AI personas square off on this story.
- 2 You predict who'll win each round — correct picks earn XP.
- 3 One crossfire question is yours to fire. Pick it carefully.
Couldn't generate a topic
Select Your Champions
Choose one persona for each side of the debate
DEBATE TOPIC
Choose personas with different perspectives for a more dynamic debate.
Select debater for this side:
No debate personas available right now.
Select debater for this side:
No debate personas available right now.
Who's Got This Round?
Make your prediction before the referee scores
The referee scores both sides on
Round Results
Set the Crossfire
Pick the question both personas must answer in the final round
Debate Oracle! You called every round!
Sharp Instincts! You know your debaters!
The Coin Flip Strategist! Perfectly balanced!
The Contrarian! Bold predictions!
Inverse Genius! Try betting the opposite next time!
XP Breakdown
Prediction History
People Involved
Organizations Involved
Oversees enforcement and implementation of the new child safety laws.
University of San Diego research institute focused on child welfare law.
Timeline
August 2026 September 2026
-
National coverage spreads after signing
Today MediaReddit and national outlets highlight California's bans on addictive features and chatbot rules.
-
Newsom signs 13-bill child safety package
LawGovernor signs laws banning addictive features for under-16s and requiring chatbot safety audits.
-
AI researchers warn of risk
StatementCurrent and former Anthropic and OpenAI researchers warned of existential AI risks.
-
Meta settles child safety lawsuits
LegalMeta agreed to pay states $18 billion to settle child safety lawsuits.
Scenarios
California child-safety laws face court challenge
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.
Other states copy California's child safety rules
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.
Federal government passes nationwide child safety rules
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.
Historical Context
3 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.
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.
Sites added age gates and parental consent flows; enforcement was uneven for years.
COPPA set the baseline for child privacy online but never addressed addictive design or algorithmic recommendation.
California's package extends the US approach from data privacy into product design, a shift COPPA never made.
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.
Platforms changed default settings and added age checks; some sued over content definitions.
Set a global template for platform 'duty of care' duties, which California's audit requirements echo.
Highlights how design-focused regulation works in practice, and the litigation platforms use to delay it.
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.
Platforms said they would comply; age-verification systems drew privacy complaints.
Australia became the reference point for state-led age gating, and several countries followed with similar proposals.
Shows both the political appeal of age-based platform bans and the messy enforcement that follows.
