A California legislative committee voted Tuesday to advance a bill that would bar children under 16 from holding social media accounts, setting up what could become the strictest age-based platform restriction in the country. The measure, SB 976, cleared the Senate Governmental Organization Committee and now heads to the Appropriations Committee.
The bill, authored by state Sen. Buffy Wicks, a Democrat from Oakland, would require social media companies to verify the age of California users and block minors under 16 from creating accounts unless a parent or guardian provides consent. Courthouse News reported that the bill would also prohibit platforms from sending notifications to minors during school hours and between midnight and 6 a.m.
If signed into law, the measure would place enforcement power with the California Attorney General's office, which could seek civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation against noncompliant platforms.
SB 976 targets what Wicks called the "addictive features" of social media platforms. The bill would require companies to disable autoplay videos, infinite scrolling, and push notifications for minor users. It would also ban platforms from using algorithms to recommend content to users under 16.
Wicks framed the bill as a response to rising mental health concerns among young Californians. She pointed to increases in youth anxiety, depression, and self-harm that she tied to social media use. During the committee hearing, Wicks said the bill is about protecting children from platforms "designed to keep them scrolling."
"We are not banning kids from the internet. We are telling tech companies that they can no longer design products that addict our children."
The age verification component drew particular attention. Under the bill, platforms would need to estimate the age of users through a method approved by the Attorney General. The bill does not specify a single verification technology, leaving that decision to regulators.
Tech industry groups opposed the measure during committee testimony. NetChoice, a trade association representing major technology companies including Meta and Google, argued the bill raises serious First Amendment concerns. The group contended that age verification requirements would force platforms to collect sensitive data from all users, not just minors, creating new privacy risks.
A NetChoice representative told the committee that the bill would "effectively require every Californian to show ID to use the internet." The organization has previously challenged similar laws in other states on constitutional grounds, winning injunctions against age verification statutes in Texas and Arkansas.
The American Civil Liberties Union of California also raised concerns. The ACLU argued that the bill's notification restrictions during school hours could interfere with legitimate communication between parents and children. The organization stopped short of formally opposing the bill but urged amendments to narrow its scope.
California has already moved to restrict student cellphone use in schools statewide by 2026, a policy that generated its own wave of parental reaction. SB 976 goes further by targeting platform design itself rather than device access.
One of the bill's most contested provisions is its parental consent mechanism. Under SB 976, a parent or guardian could affirmatively opt a child under 16 into social media access. Without that consent, the default would be no account.
Supporters say this restores decision-making power to families. Several parents testified before the committee, describing struggles to manage their children's screen time against platforms engineered to maximize engagement. One mother from Sacramento told lawmakers her 13-year-old daughter was spending six hours a day on social media and had developed anxiety severe enough to require therapy.
Critics counter that the consent framework creates its own problems. Teens in unstable or abusive homes may not have a parent willing or able to navigate the opt-in process. Others noted that parental consent mechanisms are easy to circumvent; a motivated teenager with a parent's phone can complete most verification steps in minutes.
The broader national debate over parental rights in education and youth policy has intensified in recent years. Nebraska recently passed a law giving parents access to their children's library records, reflecting a growing push by state legislatures to reassert family authority over institutional decisions affecting minors.
The legal path for SB 976 runs through uncertain constitutional ground. The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments earlier this year in a challenge to a Texas law requiring age verification for pornographic websites. That case, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, could shape how courts evaluate California's approach to age-gating social media.
Federal courts have blocked similar youth social media restrictions in other states. A federal judge in Arkansas issued a preliminary injunction against that state's Social Media Safety Act in 2023, finding it likely violated the First Amendment. An Ohio law requiring parental consent for minors to use social media also faces ongoing litigation.
Wicks acknowledged the constitutional risks but argued California's bill is more narrowly tailored than earlier state efforts. She emphasized that SB 976 targets platform design features rather than content, a distinction she said should survive First Amendment scrutiny.
Legal scholars are divided. Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, told the committee that courts have consistently struck down laws restricting minors' access to online speech. He warned that SB 976 "will almost certainly be challenged and may not survive judicial review."
The question of how states can protect children online without running afoul of the First Amendment remains unresolved. Hawaii is currently pressing design defect claims against TikTok in a child safety lawsuit, pursuing a tort-based strategy that sidesteps some of the constitutional issues raised by legislative bans.
California is not acting in isolation. At least 15 states have introduced or passed legislation targeting minors' social media use since 2023. Utah, Louisiana, and Florida have all enacted laws imposing age restrictions or parental consent requirements for social media accounts held by minors.
But California's market weight gives SB 976 outsized significance. The state's nearly 40 million residents make it the largest consumer market in the country. Tech companies based in Silicon Valley would face the prospect of building California-specific compliance systems or applying the new rules to users nationwide, a dynamic sometimes called the "California effect."
Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook, has publicly supported the concept of parental consent for teen accounts while opposing specific legislative mandates. The company announced its own set of teen safety features in 2024, including default private accounts for users under 16 and restrictions on direct messaging from adults.
State-level action on youth policy has expanded well beyond social media. A recent Colorado Supreme Court decision compelling a children's hospital to restart youth gender transitions illustrated how state courts and legislatures are grappling with competing visions of parental authority and institutional responsibility when it comes to minors.
SB 976 now moves to the Senate Appropriations Committee, where lawmakers will evaluate its fiscal impact. If it clears that hurdle, it would go to the full Senate for a vote. Wicks has said she expects the bill to reach Gov. Gavin Newsom's desk by the fall.
Newsom has not taken a public position on SB 976. He signed the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act in 2022, a separate law requiring platforms to build child safety features into products likely to be accessed by minors. A federal judge blocked key provisions of that law in 2023, ruling it likely violated the First Amendment. The case is on appeal before the Ninth Circuit.
The outcome of that appeal could directly affect SB 976's viability. If the Ninth Circuit upholds the injunction against the Design Code Act, California's legal authority to regulate platform design for minors would face a significant setback. If the court reverses, Wicks and her allies would have a stronger foundation for the new bill.
For now, the bill advances with bipartisan support in committee. The vote was unanimous, with both Democratic and Republican members backing the measure. That rare alignment suggests the politics of youth social media protection may cut differently than most California policy fights.
Whether the courts agree is another matter entirely. Sacramento can pass whatever it wants. The Constitution still gets the last word.
