Infinite Scroll Is Now Regulated: California's New Social Media Laws for Minors

The same day Governor Newsom signed Adam's Law, he signed two other measures aimed at how online platforms are built rather than what users post on them. Together they represent a shift in strategy: instead of regulating content, California is regulating design.

AB 1709: Addictive Features

Assembly Bill 1709, authored by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal, prohibits a "covered platform" from providing "addictive features" to California users under the age of 16.

The features it targets are the ones that define modern social media: autoplay, and personalized feeds that recommend or prioritize user-generated content based on information associated with the user or the user's device.

Importantly, the law does not ban minors from having accounts. Users under 16 may still have them — but platforms must offer those users an experience without the prohibited features. A chronological feed is fine; an algorithmic one tuned to maximize engagement is not.

Before offering an addictive feature, a platform must verify a user's age and take reasonable measures to prevent young users from accessing those features. If a platform cannot provide an account without the addictive features, it must delete the underage user's account and the personal information associated with it.

Penalties

The exposure is meaningful and calculated per child. A knowing violation can carry a civil penalty of up to $50,000 per affected minor. A negligent violation can carry up to $25,000 per affected minor. Across a user base, those figures compound quickly.

AB 2: Heightened Damages for Injuring a Child

Assembly Bill 2, also authored by Lowenthal, takes a different approach. Rather than creating a new regulatory regime, it attaches heightened damages to ordinary negligence law.

California Civil Code section 1714(a) already provides that everyone is responsible for injuries caused by their want of ordinary care. AB 2 adds a new section 1714.02 to the Civil Code providing that a social media platform that violates section 1714(a) by causing injury to a child is liable for statutory damages equal to the larger of:

1. $5,000 per violation, up to a maximum per child of $1,000,000; or
2. Three times the amount of the child's actual damages

Two limits matter. First, the statute does not reach every online service. It defines "social media platform" by reference to Business and Professions Code section 22675 and applies only to platforms generating more than $100 million per year in gross revenues. This is aimed at the largest companies, not small sites. Second, a finding of negligence is a predicate — the statutory damages attach to a violation of the existing ordinary-care duty, they do not create a new standalone claim.

The statute provides that any waiver of the section is void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy, and that its duties and remedies are cumulative to those imposed under other law. It carries a sunset: by its terms it operates until January 1, 2035. It was chaptered as Chapter 180 of the Statutes of 2026.

The practical effect is leverage. Negligence cases against large platforms have always been difficult and expensive, and a family's actual damages — however devastating the harm — can be hard to quantify in a way that justifies the cost of litigation. A statutory floor changes that calculation, which is precisely what the author said he intended.

Why Design Regulation Is the New Strategy

For years, efforts to hold platforms accountable ran into Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which broadly shields interactive computer services from liability for content published by their users. That defense is strongest when a claim is really about what someone posted.

It is weaker when the claim is about how the product itself was built. A plaintiff who alleges that autoplay, infinite scroll, algorithmic amplification, and engagement-optimized notifications were designed to compel compulsive use by children is not complaining about any particular post. Supporters of these laws make exactly that point: they regulate platform features, not the content users access or share.

Whether that framing survives contact with the courts is a separate question. A challenge could test whether these restrictions burden First Amendment rights or fall within the state's authority to regulate products offered to minors. California has been here before — an earlier social media measure, SB 976, drew litigation and was partially enjoined. Several of the new requirements phase in during 2027, which gives companies time to adapt and gives potential challenges time to develop.

What This Means for Families

If your child is under 16 and using a platform that still serves them an algorithmic feed or autoplay after these requirements take effect, that is a compliance failure with a per-child penalty attached. And if a platform's conduct has injured your child, AB 2 now supplies a damages framework that did not exist before.

Practical steps:

• Document the product experience. Screenshots and screen recordings showing an algorithmic feed, autoplay, or engagement-driving notifications on a minor's account are the kind of evidence these claims turn on.
• Note what age information the platform had. Whether the platform knew or should have known your child's age matters to both statutes.
• Preserve usage data. Many platforms and devices track screen time. That record can be difficult to reconstruct later.
• Keep records of harm. Medical and mental health records, school records, and contemporaneous notes about changes you observed all bear on causation and damages.

The Bottom Line

California has moved from asking what children see online to asking how the products are engineered to hold their attention. AB 1709 bans the two most recognizable engagement mechanics for users under 16 and prices violations per child. AB 2 multiplies what a family can recover when a platform's negligence injures a minor. For parents who believed there was no practical recourse, the calculus has changed.