Amending AB 1709 Doesn’t Fix It: California’s Social Media Ban Still Threatens Free Speech and Privacy
In July 2026 California lawmakers voted to amend Assembly Bill 1709, presenting the changes as a compromise that would address concerns about youth social media usesource↗. The reality, however, is that the core of the bill remains unchanged: it still bars anyone under sixteen from accessing the major social media platforms as they exist todaysource↗. Under the newly amended Section 22683, platforms are prohibited from offering "addictive features" to users under sixteensource↗. A minor may keep an account only if the platform strips away those features, which the bill defines as "addictive feeds," auto‑play, and any other element the Attorney General may later designatesource↗.
The definition of "addictive feeds" is sweeping. It covers any presentation of user‑generated content recommended "in whole or in part, on information provided by the user"source↗. That includes the basic signals platforms already use—who a user follows, what posts they like, or the interests they express in their profilesource↗. Because virtually every major social media service relies on automated recommendation algorithms to deliver content, the effect of AB 1709 is to deny minors access to those platforms in their functional formsource↗.
Even if a company attempted to comply by simply turning off recommendation engines for users under sixteen, the resulting experience would be a crippled, dysfunctional version of the servicesource↗. Recommendation systems are the primary tools that people use to discover speech, find communities, and share their own viewpointssource↗. Forcing young people onto a stripped‑down platform burdens their constitutional right to receive information and to participate in public discoursesource↗. In First Amendment terms, the bill constitutes a content‑based restriction that is unlikely to survive strict scrutinysource↗.
The amendments do nothing to alleviate the privacy threats embedded in the legislation. Section 22684 explicitly states that a covered platform "shall verify the age of a user" and makes the service liable each time a person under sixteen manages to pass an age checksource↗. Because the companion bill AB 1043 does not prescribe how verification should occur without demanding additional proof, AB 1709 will, in practice, compel platforms to adopt the most stringent forms of age gatingsource↗. Expectations are that companies will require users to upload government‑issued identification, submit to facial‑recognition scans, or provide other biometric datasource↗.
Such measures create massive honeypots of sensitive personal informationsource↗. Centralizing IDs, biometric templates, and related data invites breaches that could expose not only teens but adults whose data gets swept up in the verification processsource↗. Moreover, biometric age‑estimation tools have historically shown high error rates across racial and gender lines, meaning that legitimate users could be wrongly blocked or, conversely, under‑aged users could slip throughsource↗. The resulting erosion of online anonymity undermines a core principle of the internet and exposes users to identity theft, surveillance, and discriminationsource↗.
Legal scholars have also warned that the amended text introduces regulatory confusion. The bill’s provisions clash with existing statutes such as SB 976, which already addresses certain aspects of online child protectionsource↗. Rather than clarifying the legal landscape, AB 1709 creates a tangled web of overlapping obligations that could lead to inconsistent enforcement and costly litigation for platformssource↗. From a civil‑liberties perspective, denying minors access to digital forums—or stripping those forums of the tools needed to navigate them—is a form of censorshipsource↗. It cuts young people off from the online spaces where they form identities, find support networks, and engage in civic conversationsource↗.
As the bill moves forward in the California Senate, activists and digital‑rights groups continue to urge a "NO" votesource↗. The argument that the amendments represent a meaningful compromise falls apart when the text is examined closelysource↗. The core prohibitions remain, the age‑verification mandate persists, and the First Amendment and privacy concerns are left unaddressedsource↗. California should not become the first state to enact a sweeping ban that pushes teenagers off the platforms where they learn, create, and speaksource↗. Instead, lawmakers should focus on targeted, evidence‑based approaches that protect youth without sacrificing free speech or anonymitysource↗.
For those who value an open internet, the message is clear: contact your state senator today and demand they oppose AB 1709source↗. Minor tweaks to a fundamentally flawed bill do not make it good policysource↗. The fight for a free, private, and accessible online space continues, and the next vote in Sacramento could decide whether California leads the nation toward greater digital rights—or toward a new era of state‑mandated censorshipsource↗.
Related Reading
Similar posts
Mon, 31 Au · Digital Rights
California's AB 1709: The Digital Death Sentence for Teen Speech
EFF sounds the alarm on California's sweeping social media ban for under-16s. The bill doesn't protect kids—it hands Big Tech a biometric surveillance mandate and guts the First Amendment for a generation. Governor Newso
Tue, 30 Ju · Digital Rights
Age Verification in the UK: What Data Do Companies Collect?
In the UK, age‑gating is now mandatory for a growing list of online services. But what data is actually being handed over when you tap “I’m 18+”? This deep dive pulls the facts straight from the EFF and breaks down the p
Fri, 19 Ju · Digital Rights