A well-intentioned California social media bill is unconstitutional | Opinion
Sometimes well-intentioned laws are unconstitutional. That is the case for a bill that recently passed the California Assembly to prevent children under the age of 16 from opening social media accounts.
On May 29, the Assembly unanimously passed Assembly Bill 1709. With a lengthy and bipartisan list of authors and co-authors, AB 1709 prohibits social media platforms with “addictive features” from allowing children under 16 to create accounts. The bill targets platforms that utilize algorithm-generated feeds, endless scrolling, constant notifications and autoplay, demanding that companies verify user ages and prohibit minors from creating accounts on these platforms.
In other words, the bill would prevent children from having accounts on almost every existing social media platform.
These laws are motivated by the laudable goal of protecting children. Studies document that social media use is correlated to depression, low self-esteem, bullying and predatory behavior directed at children. The Assembly is following the lead of Australia, which adopted a law in 2025 that prohibits children under 16 from having access to 10 social media platforms, including TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, Facebook, X and Reddit.
But attempts — like AB 1709 — to have California join Australia in banning children from using social media ignore a critical difference between these countries: the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Banning those under 16 from having access to social media is at odds with the fundamental premise of the First Amendment.
Furthermore, age verification laws not only restrict access by children, but also for adults who are unable or unwilling to link their government identification to their online activity.
The Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association is particularly important: The case concerned the constitutionality of a California law that made it a crime to sell or rent violent video games to minors under 18 without parental consent. Like bans on access to social media, the California law and similar ones in other states were motivated by studies showing a link between playing violent video games and harmful behavior. And video games, like social media, are designed to be addictive and to keep people playing.
In a 7-2 decision, the court declared the California law unconstitutional, in violation of the First Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion for the court and rejected the state’s argument that states have great latitude in regulating the speech of children.
“(Minors) are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection, and only in relatively narrow and well-defined circumstances may government bar public dissemination of protected materials to them,” Scalia wrote.
This same reasoning dooms the constitutionality of AB 1709. Children have First Amendment rights, and the government cannot deny access without meeting a strict requirement of proving that the medium causes harm and that there is no other way to prevent it.
California would not be the first state to try and restrict access by minors to social media. In December 2025, a federal district court in Louisiana declared unconstitutional a law requiring age verification for access to social media. Similarly, last year, a federal court declared unconstitutional the Arkansas Social Media Safety Act, which requires all users to verify their age and imposes a parental-consent requirement for minors creating accounts.
Last summer, the Supreme Court allowed to go into effect a Mississippi law, HB 1126, that mandated age verification for all users on social media sites and requires platforms to prevent minors from accessing harmful material. There was no opinion of the court, but Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a brief concurring opinion saying that “the Mississippi law is likely unconstitutional,” though he agreed with not enjoining the law at this stage.
It is also questionable whether AB 1709 could succeed in its goals. As new media have developed, there has been a recognition of how the speech on them can harm children and a call for government action to protect them. This was true with comic books, song lyrics and video games. In each instance, the proposed restrictions were well intended, but also failed as minors still found ways to access this media. There are reports in Australia that the ban has been easily circumvented by children there.
AB 1709 passing the Assembly reflects both the concern with the effects of social media and the unpopularity of the companies that run the platforms. But it would be unconstitutional in practice. Hopefully, the Senate will reject it or the governor will veto it. If not, the courts should declare it unconstitutional as violating the First Amendment.
Erwin Chemerinsky is dean and professor of law at the UC Berkeley School of Law.
This story was originally published June 10, 2026 at 6:00 AM with the headline "A well-intentioned California social media bill is unconstitutional | Opinion."