California’s kids’ social media law is necessary but not sufficient

Capitol Weekly welcomes Opinions on California public policy or politics. Please read our guidelines for opinion pieces before submitting an Op-Ed. Submissions that do not adhere to our guidelines will not be considered for publication. 

OPINION — For too long, the responsibility for keeping teens and kids safe on social media has rested largely with the people least equipped to counter it: parents, who can supervise a household but cannot rewrite the algorithms engineered to hold their kids’ attention.

Essentially, they are expected to monitor what their children see, limit how long they are immersed online, and step in as soon as the platform’s features encourage harmful compulsive behaviors. But the truth is, parents can only do so much when cyberspace itself is engineered to hold a person’s attention. California has begun to recognize that reality through Senate Bill 976. 

Enacted as the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act in September 2024, the law intends to exercise parental oversight to restrict particular social media features that can drive prolonged engagement among minors. No outcomes data exists yet: The law’s central enforcement mechanism has spent most of its life either enjoined by federal courts or awaiting finalized regulations, due by Jan. 1, 2027.

This shift in accountability — from parents alone to the platforms whose features shape behavior — is significant because it emphasizes a fundamental point: The design of an online channel can shape children’s behavior, and ultimately their well-being. When a company complies with the regulation but its digital product continues to expose vulnerable young users to foreseeable harm, is compliance enough to shield it from liability — or can courts still hold it responsible for risks the law never addressed?

At its core, SB 976 marks a meaningful advancement in California’s stance on children’s social media use, as it prohibits certain addictive feeds and limits push notifications and other features that promote excessive interaction among minors. Furthermore, it empowers parents with enhanced oversight over their children’s engagement metrics as well as access during critical times like nighttime and school hours. 

That approach converges with what litigation has just delivered nationally: In August 2026, Meta agreed to pay up to $17.1 billion and adopt nearly identical restrictions — default time limits, nighttime blocks and non-algorithmic feed options for minors — as part of a settlement with a 50-state coalition of attorneys general, suggesting courts may be reaching through litigation what legislatures have struggled to enforce through statute. 

While SB 976 specifically addresses addictive feeds and certain engagement features, questions remain about risks arising from the broader architecture of a platform, including the content it recommends, how that content is ranked and how different features interact. Meta’s own internal research, surfaced during this year’s child-safety trial, found that teens who reported feeling negatively about their bodies were shown eating-disorder-adjacent content at three times the rate of other users — and that the company’s existing screening tools caught only a small fraction of it.

A company or developer can therefore satisfy the requirements governing one aspect without necessarily eliminating foreseeable risks created by the digital product as a whole. And the breadth of young people’s exposure makes that disparity troubling. 

Nearly all — about 97% — teens across the country reported they are online every day, and roughly half admit to dedicating too much time to social media. About 48% shared that these platforms led to mostly negative impacts.

The U.S. Surgeon General has sounded the alarm, revealing that the risk of mental health problems — particularly depression and anxiety — may be double for kids and teens spending over three hours a day on social media, while close to 50% of individuals aged 13 to 17 struggled with their body image.

If social media design affects how minors interact with these platforms, three questions follow: What did companies’ internal research reveal about features that drive prolonged engagement? Did they understand specific design choices could worsen vulnerable minors’ usage? Did they explore feasible alternatives? The same trial suggests these are no longer hypothetical — Instagram’s own head testified that a teen-use-limiting feature saw just 1.8% adoption before being made default years later.

These queries are crucial because liability is not solely contingent on whether lawmakers have identified a particular feature and banned it; it also depends on whether a company was aware that its product posed a foreseeable risk and that appropriate measures were feasible. 

And SB 976 may amplify the importance of such concerns.

By explicitly acknowledging that certain design practices can be damaging to minors, California has established a regulatory framework that scrutinizes the broader repercussions of harmful social media use. This recognition should hold weight, but it does not automatically resolve questions of foreseeability, corporate awareness, available safeguards or causation. 

Practically, this approach does not presume that every injury following social-media use creates liability; it simply recognizes that meeting a statutory baseline cannot, by itself, answer every question about a product’s safety. California has drawn an important line around how platforms may be designed for minors. Whether that line also marks the limits of corporate responsibility, however, may ultimately be for the courts to decide.

Stan Gottfredson is president and CEO of Atraxia Law, which provides aid to victims and families affected by social media addiction.