AB 1709 and AB 2: California Takes On Addictive Feeds and Raises Damages for Harming Kids

On the same day he signed Adam's Law, Governor Newsom signed two bills by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal aimed at how online platforms are built. Neither one regulates what users post. They regulate design, and that choice explains a lot about why they were written the way they were.

AB 1709: autoplay and personalized feeds

AB 1709 prohibits a covered platform from providing "addictive features" to California users under 16. The features it targets are autoplay and personalized feeds that recommend or prioritize user-generated content based on information associated with the user or their device.

The law doesn't ban minors from having accounts. Users under 16 can still have them, but they have to get a version without the prohibited features. A chronological feed is allowed. An algorithmic one tuned for engagement isn't.

Before offering an addictive feature, a platform has to verify the user's age and take reasonable measures to keep younger users away from those features. If a platform can't provide an account without them, it must delete the underage user's account and the personal information associated with it.

Penalties are calculated per child: up to $50,000 per affected minor for a knowing violation and up to $25,000 per affected minor for a negligent one.

AB 2: statutory damages in negligence cases

AB 2 works differently. It doesn't set up a new regulatory scheme. It attaches heightened damages to ordinary negligence law.

California Civil Code section 1714(a) already makes everyone responsible for injuries caused by a lack of ordinary care. AB 2 adds section 1714.02, which provides 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 of $1,000,000 per child, or
2. three times the child's actual damages.

Two limits keep this narrower than it might first appear. The statute defines "social media platform" by reference to Business and Professions Code section 22675 and applies only to platforms with more than $100 million a year in gross revenue, so it's aimed at the largest companies. And a finding of negligence is still required. The statutory damages attach to a breach of the existing duty of ordinary care rather than creating a freestanding claim.

Any waiver of the section is void as against public policy, and its duties and remedies are in addition to those available under other law. The section is set to remain in effect until January 1, 2035. It was chaptered as Chapter 180 of the Statutes of 2026.

The point of a statutory floor is to make these cases feasible. Suing a large platform for negligence is expensive, and a child's injuries, however serious, can be hard to reduce to a dollar figure that justifies the cost. The author said changing that calculation was the goal.

Why design, and not content

For years, efforts to hold platforms responsible ran into Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which broadly protects online services from liability for content their users post. That protection is strongest when a claim is really about a particular post.

It's much weaker when the claim is about how the product was engineered. Alleging that autoplay, infinite scroll, algorithmic amplification, and engagement-driven notifications were designed to keep children using a product compulsively isn't a complaint about any specific piece of content. Supporters of these bills make exactly that argument.

Whether the courts agree is another matter. A legal challenge could argue that the restrictions burden First Amendment rights, and California has seen this before: an earlier social media law, SB 976, was challenged and partially enjoined. Several of the new requirements phase in during 2027.

If your child is affected

Once these requirements take effect, a platform that still gives an under-16 user an algorithmic feed or autoplay is out of compliance. And if a large platform's negligence has injured your child, AB 2 supplies a damages framework that didn't exist before.

Evidence tends to be about the product experience itself. Screenshots or screen recordings showing an algorithmic feed, autoplay, or engagement notifications on a minor's account are useful, as is anything showing what the platform knew about the user's age. Screen-time data from the device or the app can be hard to reconstruct later, so save it. Medical and mental health records, school records, and your own notes about changes you observed bear on causation and damages.