Social media giants relaunch fight against state's personalized-feed ban

Social media giants that previously lost a challenge to California's ban on personalized feeds are taking a second run at the law, filing new federal lawsuits after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their earlier case for lack of associational standing.

The companies -- Meta Platforms Inc., YouTube LLC and TikTok Inc. -- filed individual complaints last week, after the 9th Circuit held that NetChoice, LLC, the trade association that brought the initial case, could not assert associational standing on their behalf. TikTok Inc. v. Bonta, 25-cv-09789 (N.D. Cal., filed Nov. 13, 2025); Meta Platforms Inc. v. Bonta, 25-cv-09792 (N.D. Cal., filed Nov. 13, 2025); Google LLC et al. v. Bonta, 25-cv-09795 (N.D. Cal., filed Nov. 13, 2025).

All three cases have been assigned to Senior U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila in San Jose, who previously rejected their challenge to SB 967's restrictions on personalized feeds -- a ruling the 9th Circuit largely affirmed in September. The law, the Protecting Our Kids From Social Media Act, aims to curb what lawmakers describe as "addictive" feed features that harm minors' mental health.

In nearly identical complaints, the companies again argue the statute is unconstitutional, asserting that SB 967 unlawfully prevents them from "curating and disseminating ... edited compilation[s] of third-party expression," activity they say was protected by the U.S. Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Moody v. NetChoice LLC, 2024 DJDAR 6138.

The 9th Circuit panel, however, signaled skepticism during earlier proceedings, with Judge Ryan D. Nelson comparing the allegedly addictive qualities of personalized feeds to tobacco products. When counsel for NetChoice argued the feeds were protected under Moody, Nelson expressed doubt the companies could show the law was unconstitutional in every application. "It might actually be worse than a carcinogen," he said. "You sound like the tobacco companies."

Although the litigation remains in early stages, SB 967's age-verification requirement has yet to be tested; it takes effect in 2027.

A TikTok spokesperson called SB 967 "a blatantly unconstitutional restriction on free expression that erodes the long-standing and protected practice of curating content based on user preferences," adding that the platform already provides extensive parental controls, privacy protections and screen-time tools.

TikTok is represented by Daniel M. Petrocelli of O'Melveny & Myers LLP. Meta is represented by Isaac D. Chaput of Covington & Burling LLP. Google is represented by Elizabeth B. Prelogar, a Cooley LLP partner and former U.S. solicitor general.