Existing law provides that everyone is responsible not only for the result of their willful acts but also for an injury occasioned to another by their want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their property or person.

This bill would, until January 1, 2035, make a social media platform, as defined, liable for specified damages if the social media platform fails to exercise ordinary care or skill by causing injury to a child.

Existing law provides that everyone is responsible not only for the result of their willful acts but also for an injury occasioned to another by their want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their property or person.

This bill would, until January 1, 2035, make a social media platform, as defined, liable for specified damages if the social media platform fails to exercise ordinary care or skill by causing injury to a child.

Existing law provides that everyone is responsible not only for the result of their willful acts but also for an injury occasioned to another by their want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their property or person.

This bill would would, until January 1, 2035, make a social media platform, as defined, liable for specified damages if the social media platform fails to exercise ordinary care or skill by causing injury to a child.

Existing law provides that everyone is responsible not only for the result of their willful acts but also for an injury occasioned to another by their want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their property or person.

This bill would make a social media platform, as defined, liable for specified damages if the social media platform fails to exercise ordinary care or skill by causing injury to a child.

Existing law provides that everyone is responsible not only for the result of their willful acts, acts but also for an injury occasioned to another by their want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their property or person.

This bill would make a social media platform, as defined, liable for specified damages in addition to any other remedy provided by law, if the social media platform fails to exercise ordinary care or skill toward a by causing injury to a child.

Existing law provides that everyone is responsible not only for the result of their willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by their want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their property or person.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would make a social media platform liable for specified civil penalties in addition to any other remedy provided by law, if the platform fails to exercise ordinary care or skill toward a child. make a social media platform, as defined, liable for specified damages in addition to any other remedy provided by law, if the platform fails to exercise ordinary care or skill toward a child.

Existing law provides that everyone is responsible not only for the result of their willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by their want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their property or person.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would make a social media platform liable for specified civil penalties in addition to any other remedy provided by law, if the platform fails to exercise ordinary care or skill toward a child.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2

Author:(Lowenthal and Patterson)

As Amended Ver:July 2, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Augments, until January 1, 2035, the penalties large social media platforms may face if they violate existing law by causing an injury to a minor through failure to exercise ordinary care.

Senate Amendments

1. Sunset the bill January 1, 2035.
2. Provide that the bill does not apply to cases pending on or before January 1, 2027, rather than 2026.

COMMENTS

Social media harms to children. From 2010 to 2019, "rates of depression and anxiety—fairly stable during the 2000s—rose by more than 50% in many studies" and "[t]he suicide rate rose 48% for adolescents ages 10 to 19." This trend tracks "the years when adolescents in rich countries traded their flip phones for smartphones and moved much more of their social lives online—particularly onto social-media platforms designed for virality and addiction."^[1]

According to the Surgeon General:

[T]he current body of evidence indicates that while social media may have benefits for some children and adolescents, there are ample indicators that social media can also have a profound risk of harm to the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents. At this time, we do not yet have enough evidence to determine if social media is sufficiently safe for children and adolescents.^[2]

Some social media companies have known for some time that social media use can be harmful to young users, and despite that knowledge, have continued to use algorithms and other design features to capture and hold their attention. Whistleblower Frances Haugen, for instance, revealed in 2021 that Facebook was well aware of the apparent connection between the teen mental health crisis and social media – including the severe harm to body image visited disproportionately on teen girls as a result of social comparison on these platforms – but nonetheless sought to recruit more children and expose them to addictive features that would lead to harmful content.^[3] Such revelations underscore the culpability of some social media companies in propagating features detrimental to the wellbeing of youth through intentional design choices that maximize engagement with profit-motivated online services. Recent litigation that has resulted in liability and in major settlements reflects the increasing accountability that social media companies are facing.

Enhanced liability for negligence. State law provides that everyone, including individuals, businesses, and other entities, has a duty of "ordinary care and skill" in the "management" of their "property or person" – the long-established standard for negligence. This bill provides that a social media platform that violates this duty and harms a minor is additionally liable for either $5,000 per violation, with a per-minor maximum of $1,000,000, or three times the amount of the minor's actual damages.

Under existing law, social media platforms, like other entities, owe everyone a duty of care. The breach of this duty in a manner that causes harm can give rise to negligence lawsuits. This bill does not change those underlying principles. It simply increases the amount of damages that may be recovered from large social media companies if the injured party in such cases is a minor.

Constitutional considerations. Under existing law, some cases against social media platforms do not make it past the hurdles posed by Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Section 230 states, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."^[4] Case law suggests that social media platforms continue to have a duty of care to users and that negligence claims arising from a platforms' independent conduct, rather than their status as publishers of third party content, are compatible with Section 230. Recent litigation that has resulted in liability and in major settlements bolsters this view, reflecting the increasing accountability that social media companies are facing.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, among other things, prohibits states from abridging freedom of speech. Because the bill does not regulate speech, it likely does not facially violate First Amendment. Nevertheless, as with negligence claims under existing law, there may be some cases in which the application of the bill to a particular situation unduly infringes on speech.

According to the Author

AB 2 amends Section 1714 of the Civil Code by adding statutory damages against platforms that are found in court to be liable under current law for negligently causing harm to children under the age of 18. Under the bill, if a company is proven to have failed to exercise its already established duty of operating with ordinary care, the company becomes financially liable for a set amount of $5,000 per violation, up to a maximum penalty of $1 million per child, or three times the amount of the child’s actual damages, whichever is applicable. This financial liability aims to incentivize platforms who count their profits in the tens of billions to proactively safeguard children against potential harm by changing how they operate their platforms.

Arguments in Support

A coalition of organizations, including Common Sense Media, writes in support:

This bill establishes statutory damages under California’s existing negligence law for harms to minors related to social media that can be proven in court. That is the only change to California law that this bill makes. These financial penalties are needed and intended to motivate large social media companies to do what they currently refuse to do - ensure that the way they design and operate their platforms does not injure young users. There is mounting evidence, including from internal company communications, that social media platforms contribute to our youth mental health crisis and to other direct harms to kids and teens, including accessing fentanyl and other illegal drugs.

As the use of social media continues to climb among children and adolescents, so too does the urgency for legislative action. AB 2 offers a path to mitigate the risks faced by our youth in an increasingly connected world, ensuring that social media companies operate with the due care our children deserve.

Arguments in Opposition

A group of industry associations, including TechNet, write in opposition:

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. Section 230) generally protects platforms from liability for content that users generate with limited exceptions. This protection enables platforms to host third party content and moderate third-party content on their platforms without fear of liability.

Without the protections of Section 230, the internet ecosystem would be dramatically different with a limited ability for users to post, share, read, view, and discover the content of others.

Fortunately, Section 230 explicitly preempts state laws such as AB 2 that would conflict with this protection. This bill creates liability for platforms based on third party content by applying to any feature that allows users to encounter content. It effectively assumes that all features are harmful and imposes liability on a site for offering any of those features to children. Platforms’ algorithms and features that allow users to encounter or share content from other users are inextricably linked to the underlying content. Therefore, by imposing liability on platforms for these features, AB 2 conflicts with Section 230 and is likely preempted.

FISCAL COMMENTS

As currently in print, this bill is keyed nonfiscal.

VOTES:

ASM PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION: 9-0-6

YES: Dixon, Berman, Bryan, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Ortega, Patterson, Pellerin, Ward

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bauer-Kahan, DeMaio, Irwin, Macedo, Petrie-Norris, Wilson

ASM JUDICIARY: 9-0-3

YES: Kalra, Wicks, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Stefani, Zbur

ABS, ABST OR NV: Dixon, Sanchez, Tangipa

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 66-0-13

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lee, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Zbur, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bains, Castillo, DeMaio, Jeff Gonzalez, Hadwick, Irwin, Lackey, Macedo, Petrie-Norris, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Wilson

UPDATED

VERSION: July 2, 2026

CONSULTANT: Josh Tosney / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200 FN: 0004411

1. Haidt, End the Phone-Based Childhood Now (March 13, 2024) The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/03/teen-childhood-smartphone-use-mental-health-effects/677722/. ↑

2. Surgeon General's Advisory, Social Media and Youth Mental Health (2023), p. 4, https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/reports-and-publications/youth-mental-health/social-media/index.html. ↑

3. Facebook Whistleblower Frances Haugen Testifies on Children & Social Media Use: Full Senate Hearing Transcript (Oct. 5, 2021), https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-testifies-on-children-social-media-use-full-senate-hearing-transcript. ↑

4. 47 U.S.C. Section 230(c)(1). ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2

Author: Lowenthal (D) and Patterson (R), et al.

Amended: 7/2/26 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE PRIV., DIGITAL TECH. & CONS. PROT. COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/15/26

AYES: Cabaldon, Gonzalez, McNerney, Padilla, Reyes, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Jones, Ochoa Bogh, Umberg

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 6/30/26

AYES: Umberg, Niello, Allen, Ashby, Durazo, Laird, Reyes, Stern, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Caballero, Valladares

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 4-0, 8/13/26

AYES: Cervantes, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto, Dahle, Wahab

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 66-0, 5/12/25 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Injuries to children: civil penalties

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill, until January 1, 2035, increases the penalties that can be sought against a social media platform, as defined, if the platform fails to exercise ordinary care or skill and injures a child.

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law:

1. Provides, in federal law, that a provider or user of an interactive computer service shall not be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. (47 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 230(c)(1).)
2. Provides that a provider or user of an interactive computer service shall not be held liable on account of:
   1. any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
   2. any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to such material. (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2).)

Existing state law:

1. Provides that every person is responsible, not only for the result of their willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by the person’s want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon themselves. (Civ. Code § 1714(a) (“Section 1714(a)”).)
2. Defines “social media platform” as a public or semipublic internet-based service or application that has users in California and that meets both of the following criteria:
   1. A substantial function of the service or application is to connect users in order to allow users to interact socially with each other within the service or application. A service or application that provides email or direct messaging services shall not be considered to meet this criterion on the basis of that function alone.
   2. The service or application allows users to do all of the following:
      1. Construct a public or semipublic profile for purposes of signing into and using the service or application.
      2. Populate a list of other users with whom an individual shares a social connection within the system.
      3. Create or post content viewable by other users, including, but not limited to, on message boards, in chat rooms, or through a landing page or main feed that presents the user with content generated by other users. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 22675(e).)

This bill:

1. Provides that a social media platform that violates Section 1714(a) by causing injury to a child shall, in addition to any other remedy, be liable for statutory damages for the larger of the following:
   1. $5,000 per violation up to a maximum, per child, of $1,000,000.
   2. Three times the amount of the child’s actual damages.
2. Aligns the definition of “social media platform” with that in Section 22675 of the Business and Professions Code, and limits application of this bill to those platforms that generate more than $100 million per year in gross revenues.
3. Provides that the duties, remedies, and obligations it imposes are cumulative to the duties, remedies, or obligations imposed under other law and shall not be construed to relieve a social media platform from any duties, remedies, or obligations imposed under any other law.
4. Provides that the above provisions shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2035, and will be repealed on that date.
5. Includes a severability clause and applies prospectively.
6. Provides that any attempted waiver is void and unenforceable.
7. States specified findings and declarations.

Background

Today, over 70% of adults use at least one social media platform. Facebook alone is used by 69% of adults, and 70% of those adults say they use the platform on a daily basis. However, this explosion is not limited to adults. Survey data found that overall screen use among teens and tweens increased by 17% from 2019 to 2021, with the number of hours spent online spiking sharply during the pandemic. A recent survey found almost 40% of tweens stated that they use social media and estimates from 2018 put the number of teens on the sites at over 70 percent. Given the reach of social media and the increasing role they play in many children’s lives, concerns have arisen over the connection between social media usage and mental health, drug use, and other self-harming conduct.

This bill seeks to address these issues by simply enhancing the remedies that can be sought against a social media platform that breaches its existing duty of ordinary care and skill to a child. Based on existing causes of action under negligence law, this bill provides for statutory damages of $5,000 to $1 million per violation or three times the amount of the child’s actual damages, whichever is larger. Lastly, this bill provides that its provisions shall only remain in effect until January 1, 2035.

This bill is supported by various groups, including the Los Angeles County Office of Education and Common Sense Media. It is opposed by a number of industry associations, including Technet and the Computer and Communications Industry Association. For a more thorough analysis, please see the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee analysis.

Comments

Research has shown that amongst American teenagers, YouTube, Instagram, and Snapchat are the most popular social media sites, and 45% of teenagers stated that they are “online almost constantly.”^[1] A meta-analysis of research on social networking site (SNS) use concluded the studies supported an association between problematic SNS use and psychiatric disorder symptoms, particularly in adolescents.^[2] The study found most associations were with depression and anxiety.

There are various features of social media that are believed to contribute to excessive social media use and preoccupation and attendant mental health issues in children and that are repeatedly highlighted as the most problematic for users, especially children. They are pinpointed by academic research,^[3] and lawsuits brought by most states’ Attorneys General,^[4] as the core of the problem. These include the display of “likes” and other feedback on posted media that drive minors’ unhealthy comparisons to others and their obsessive usage.

In addition, the constant notifications that are sent to users nudge them back onto a platform throughout the day and night to seek the next hit of dopamine. The biggest and most central of them all is the algorithmic feeds that are fueled by a user’s own information and inferences drawn from their past behavior and data collected from other sources. While these features can effectively serve up content curated for a user’s personal tastes and create social connections among users, it is these types of features that are most concerning to advocates for reform.

Existing negligence law imposes a responsibility on everyone, including social media platforms, for injuries occasioned to others by their want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their property or person. This bill does not alter any existing duty. Rather, it seeks to acknowledge the unique impacts that social media platforms are shown to have on a particularly vulnerable population, California’s children.

The bill does this by increasing the remedies that children may seek when social media platforms break this existing duty to refrain from causing them injury. The bill provides for statutory damages from $5,000 to $1 million per violation, per child or three times the child’s actual damages, whichever is more.

According to the author:

AB 2 amends Section 1714 of the Civil Code by adding statutory damages against platforms that are found in court to be liable under current law for negligently causing harm to children under the age of 18. Under the bill, if a company is proven to have failed to exercise its already established duty of operating with ordinary care, the company becomes financially liable for a set amount of $5,000 per violation, up to a maximum penalty of $1 million per child, or three times the amount of the child’s actual damages, whichever is applicable. This financial liability aims to incentivize platforms who count their profits in the tens of billions to proactively safeguard children against potential harm by changing how they operate their platforms.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

Unknown, potentially significant court cost pressure if the Attorney General (AG) brings civil actions for violations against any person who engages in a deceptive act or practice. Actual costs will depend on the number of actions filed and the amount of time needed to adjudicate each case.

Unknown, likely significant court cost pressure as the UCL permits private plaintiffs to bring a cause of action. Although courts are not funded based on workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a demand for increased funding for courts. The proposed FY 2026-07 Governor’s budget would provide $70 million General Fund support (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund).

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/13/26)

California Teachers Supporting Gender-nonconforming Youth
Children's Advocacy Institute
Common Sense Media
Consumer Federation of California
Healthier-tech
Hebrew Academy Community Day School
Jewish Family and Children's Services of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Mama - West LA
Nextgen California
Organization for Social Media Safety
Parent Collective
Safe School Tech
Safe Social Media
San Mateo Foster City School District
Schools Beyond Screens San Diego
Tech Oversight Project Dba Tech Oversight California

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/13/26)

California Chamber of Commerce
Chamber of Progress
Civil Justice Association of California
Computer and Communications Industry Association
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Technet

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: A coalition of organizations, including Common Sense Media, writes in support:

This bill establishes statutory damages under California’s existing negligence law for harms to minors related to social media that can be proven in court. That is the only change to California law that this bill makes. These financial penalties are needed and intended to motivate large social media companies to do what they currently refuse to do - ensure that the way they design and operate their platforms does not injure young users. There is mounting evidence, including from internal company communications, that social media platforms contribute to our youth mental health crisis and to other direct harms to kids and teens, including accessing fentanyl and other illegal drugs.

As the use of social media continues to climb among children and adolescents, so too does the urgency for legislative action. AB 2 offers a path to mitigate the risks faced by our youth in an increasingly connected world, ensuring that social media companies operate with the due care our children deserve.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: A group of industry associations, including Technet, write in opposition:

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. §230) generally protects platforms from liability for content that users generate with limited exceptions. This protection enables platforms to host third party content and moderate third-party content on their platforms without fear of liability.

Without the protections of Section 230, the internet ecosystem would be dramatically different with a limited ability for users to post, share, read, view, and discover the content of others.

Fortunately, Section 230 explicitly preempts state laws such as AB 2 that would conflict with this protection. This bill creates liability for platforms based on third party content by applying to any feature that allows users to encounter content. It effectively assumes that all features are harmful and imposes liability on a site for offering any of those features to children. Platforms’ algorithms and features that allow users to encounter or share content from other users are inextricably linked to the underlying content. Therefore, by imposing liability on platforms for these features, AB 2 conflicts with Section 230 and is likely preempted.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 66-0, 5/12/25

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lee, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bains, Castillo, DeMaio, Jeff Gonzalez, Hadwick, Irwin, Lackey, Macedo, Petrie-Norris, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Wilson

Prepared by: Christian Kurpiewski / P., D.T., & C.P. / (916) 651-1548 / Benjamin Diaz / P., D.T., & C.P. / (916) 651-1548

8/14/26 10:38:11

**** END ****

1. Zaheer Hussain and Mark D Griffiths, Problematic Social Networking Site Use and Comorbid Psychiatric Disorders: A Systematic Review of Recent Large-Scale Studies.”
   (December 14, 2018) Frontiers in psychiatry vol. 9 686, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6302102/pdf/fpsyt-09-00686.pdf. All internet citations are current as of August 13, 2026. ↑

2. Ibid. ↑

3. Kirsten Weir, Social media brings benefits and risks to teens. Here’s how psychology can help identify a path forward (September 1, 2023) American Psychological Association, https://www.apa.org/monitor/2023/09/protecting-teens-on-social-media. ↑

4. Matt Richtel, Is Social Media Addictive? Here’s What the Science Says (October 25, 2023) The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/25/health/social-media-addiction.html. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 2 (Lowenthal) - Injuries to children: civil penalties

Bill Summary:

AB 2, would, until January 1, 2035, make a social media platform liable for civil damages if the social media platform fails to exercise ordinary care or skill by causing injury to a child. A violation would constitute a deceptive act or practice under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

Fiscal Impact:

Unknown, potentially significant court cost pressure if the Attorney General (AG) brings civil actions for violations against any person who engages in a deceptive act or practice. Actual costs will depend on the number of actions filed and the amount of time needed to adjudicate each case.

Unknown, likely significant court cost pressure as the UCL permits private plaintiffs to bring a cause of action. Although courts are not funded based on workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a demand for increased funding for courts.  The proposed FY 2026-07 Governor’s budget would provide $70 million General Fund support (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund).

Proposed Law:

A social media platform is defined as a social media platform that generates more than $100,000,000 per year in gross revenues.

A social media platform that causes injury to a child shall be liable for statutory damages for the larger of the following:

1) $5,000 per violation up to a maximum per child, of $1,000,000.

2) Three times the amount of the child’s actual damages.

Child means a minor under 18 years of age.

Staff Comments:

Unlike the AG, who may seek significant civil penalties for UCL violations, the remedies available to private plaintiffs are more limited. They may seek neither penalties nor damages to compensate for injuries caused by the violation. Instead, private plaintiffs may seek an injunction to halt the unfair, unlawful or fraudulent practice and restitution of any gains obtained as a result of the violation. As injunctions and restitution are equitable remedies that do not require submission to a jury, private UCL actions are tried before a judge, who has the sole discretion to determine if the alleged wrongful act is an unfair, fraudulent, or unlawful business practice and to determine the appropriate equitable remedy. A court may order restitution in a UCL action without individual proof of injury if it determines that such a remedy is necessary to prevent the unfair practice.

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 2 (Author:Lowenthal)

Version: June 22, 2026

Hearing Date: June 30, 2026

Fiscal: No

Urgency: No

Consultant: AWM

SUBJECT

Injuries to children: civil penalties

DIGEST

This bill increases the penalties that can be sought against a social media platform, as defined, if the platform fails to exercise ordinary care or skill and injures a child.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Under California law, every person is responsible “for an injury occasioned to another by [their] want of ordinary care or skill in the management of [their] property or person.” (Civ. Code, § 1714(a) (Section 1714).) This baseline standard is known as the “duty of ordinary care”; a person who fails to exercise ordinary care and skill in their activities acts negligently, and can be liable for any injuries that result from their negligence. Section 1714 applies to all interactions unless the specific relationship between the parties requires a higher or lower degree of care (e.g., a parent has a duty to affirmatively protect their child from harm, not just avoid harming their child through their own negligence).

Given the reach of social media platforms and the increasing role they play in many children’s lives, concerns have arisen over the connection between social media usage and mental health, drug use, and other self-harming conduct. This bill seeks to address these issues by increasing the remedies that can be sought against a social media platform that harms a child through its own negligence, i.e., its failure to use ordinary care and skill in its own activities. There is no new cause of action, only the potential for greater damages under existing causes of action sounding in negligence towards a child user. In the event a plaintiff prevailed on such a claim, the bill permits them to recover statutory damages of $5,000 to $1 million per violation or three times the amount of the child’s actual damages, whichever is larger. The bill does not permit a prevailing plaintiff to recover attorney’s fees or costs. The author has agreed to an eight-year sunset on the bill.

This bill is sponsored by Common Sense Media and is supported by various groups, including the Los Angeles County Office of Education and the California Charter Schools Association. This bill is opposed by a number of industry associations, including Technet and the Computer and Communications Industry Association. The Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee passed this bill with a vote of 6-0.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing constitutional law:

1. Provides that the U.S. Constitution, and the Laws of the United States, are the supreme law of the land. (U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2.)
2. Provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. (U.S. Const., 1st amend. (the First Amendment) & 14th amend.; see Gitlow v. People of State of New York (1925) 268 U.S. 652, 666 (First Amendment guarantees apply to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment).)
3. Provides that every person may freely speak, write, and publish their sentiments on all subjects, and that a law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 2.)

Existing federal law:

1. Provides that a provider or user of an interactive computer service shall not be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) (Section 230).)
2. Provides that a provider or user of an interactive computer service shall not be held liable on account of:
   1. Any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
   2. Any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to such material. (Section 230, subd. (c)(2).)

Existing state law:

1. Provides that every person is responsible, not only for the result of their willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by the person’s want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon themselves. (Civ. Code § 1714(a) (Section 1714).)
2. Defines “social media platform” as a public or semipublic internet-based service or application that has users in California and that meets both of the following criteria:
   1. A substantial function of the service or application is to connect users in order to allow users to interact socially with each other within the service or application. A service or application that provides email or direct messaging services shall not be considered to meet this criterion on the basis of that function alone.
   2. The service or application allows users to do all of the following:
      1. Construct a public or semipublic profile for purposes of signing into and using the service or application.
      2. Populate a list of other users with whom an individual shares a social connection within the system.
      3. Create or post content viewable by other users, including, but not limited to, on message boards, in chat rooms, or through a landing page or main feed that presents the user with content generated by other users. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 22675(e).)

This bill:

1. States that the Legislature finds and declares the following:
   1. Section 1714(a) already makes every person and corporation, including social media platforms, financially responsible for an injury occasioned to another by their want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their property or person.
   2. Children are uniquely vulnerable on social media platforms.
   3. The biggest social media platforms invent and deploy features they know injure large numbers of children, including contributing to child deaths.
   4. The costs of these injuries are unfairly being paid by parents, schools, and taxpayers, not the platforms.
   5. This measure is necessary to ensure that the social media platforms that are knowingly causing the most severe injuries to the largest number of children receive heightened damages to prevent injury from occurring to children in the first place.
2. Provides that a social media platform that violates Section 1714(a) by causing injury to a child shall be liable for statutory damages for the larger of the following:
   1. $5,000 per violation, up to a per-child maximum of $1 million.
   2. Three times the amount of the child’s actual damages.
3. Provides that any waiver of 2) is void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy.
4. Aligns the definition of “social media platform” with that in Section 22675 of the Business and Professions Code, and limits application of the bill to those platforms that generate more than $100 million per year in gross revenues.
5. Provides that the duties, remedies, and obligations it imposes are cumulative to the duties, remedies, or obligations imposed under other law and shall not be construed to relieve a social media platform from any duties, remedies, or obligations imposed under any other law.
6. Includes a severability clause and specifies that its provisions apply only prospectively.
7. Provides that any attempted waiver is void and unenforceable.

COMMENTS

1. Author’s comment

According to the author:

AB 2 amends Section 1714 of the Civil Code by adding statutory damages against platforms that are found in court to be liable under current law for negligently causing harm to children under the age of 18. Under the bill, if a company is proven to have failed to exercise its already established duty of operating with ordinary care, the company becomes financially liable for a set amount of $5,000 per violation, up to a maximum penalty of $1 million per child, or three times the amount of the child’s actual damages, whichever is applicable. This financial liability aims to incentivize platforms who count their profits in the tens of billions to proactively safeguard children against potential harm by changing how they operate their platforms.

2. The origins of Section 230

In 1995, nearly 14 millions Americans subscribed to an “online service” or connected directly to the internet.^[1] 1995 is also the year that a single trial judge in New York issued the ruling^[2] that led to the enactment of Section 230, also known as the “twenty-six words that created the internet.”^[3]

The case in question was a defamation case seeking to hold the internet service provider, Prodigy, liable for an unknown user’s defamatory statements posted a message board.^[4] The court decided that, because Prodigy held itself out as a “family oriented computer network” that exercised editorial control over the content on its bulletin boards, Prodigy should be treated as a publisher of the anonymous user’s statements, rather than a distributor.^[5] Under longstanding defamation law, publishers are liable for repeating or broadcasting defamatory statements as if they were the speaker; distributors—such as bookstores and libraries—are liable for the defamation contained in works they distribute only if they know or have reason to know that a statement in their materials is false.^[6] The upshot was, because Prodigy engaged in content moderation, it was at risk of being held liable for any defamatory statement posted by its users.

In response to this single New York judge’s order, two federal legislators and members of the burgeoning internet industry crafted a law to give internet platforms immunity from liability for users’ statements, even if they might have reason to know that such statements might be false, defamatory, or otherwise actionable.^[7]

The crux of Section 230 is laid out in two parts. The first provides that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”^[8] The second provides a safe harbor for content moderation, by stating that no provider or user shall be held liable because of good-faith efforts to restrict access to material that is “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”^[9] Section 230 also expressly preempts state law, stating that it does not preempt federal criminal laws but that “[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State law that is inconsistent with this section.”^[10]

3. Early Section 230 caselaw: an expansive approach

Section 230 uses terminology generally applicable in defamation cases (e.g., “publisher,” “speaker”), but the courts interpreting Section 230 following its enactment did not limit its application to the defamation context. Instead, courts allowed Section 230 to immunize internet platforms from “virtually all suits arising from third-party content.”^[11]

One such early case is Zeran v. America Online.^[12] The plaintiff, Ken Zeran, was the target of a multi-day harassment campaign in which an anonymous user repeatedly posted messages falsely connecting Zeran to the sale of offensive products—such as t-shirts “featuring offensive and tasteless slogans related to the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City”—and instructing users to “call Ken” at his actual home telephone number.^[13] Zeran was inundated with angry phone calls, including death threats.^[14] Zeran called AOL repeatedly (it was a simpler time) and company representatives assured him they would take down the messages.^[15] But the posts, and the death threats, kept coming.^[16]

Zeran filed a negligence suit against AOL, alleging that AOL’s response to the fake posts was inadequate, particularly after Zeran made them aware of the problem.^[17] The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, however, held that the suit was preempted by Section 230.^[18] Both Zeran and the court seemed stuck on the question of whether Zeran was seeking to hold AOL liable as a publisher or a distributor, rather than whether AOL’s actions in response to the third-party content could separately give rise to liability.^[19]

Zeran was one of the first Court of Appeal cases to consider Section 230, and its expansive reading of Section 230’s preemption clause was subsequently adopted across the country. Courts even extended Section 230 immunity to situations where the platform’s moderator affirmatively solicited the information, selected the user’s statement for publication, and/or edited the content.^[20] This interpretation of Section 230 gave speech on social media greater protections than speech in other contexts, e.g., by eliminating distributor liability for statements that an online provider knew or should have known was false,^[21] and also relieved platforms of virtually all responsibility to take action to protect their users. This “Internet exceptionalism” approach enabled the development of the social media platforms that dominate the landscape today.^[22]

4. The rise of algorithmic social media

While chatrooms and other social networking sites existed before the 21st century, Friendster and Myspace, launched in 2002 and 2003, were arguably the first modern social media sites.^[23] These sites’ popularity opened the floodgates: TheFacebook launched in 2004, YouTube and Reddit launched in 2005, Twitter in 2006, Tumblr in 2007, and Pinterest and Instagram in 2010.

These websites “built their operations around third-party content,”^[24] enabled by the expansive interpretation of Section 230:

The broad Zeran interpretation of Section 230 was a catalyst for the success of these interactive websites. If there was even a chance that the websites could successfully be sued for user posts, their business models simply could not exist. The sites could not review the millions of words, pictures, and videos that were uploaded. And if they did not screen every bit of third-party content in advance, they could be liable for existential amounts of damages…These sites have faced many potentially devastating lawsuits because of user content, and Section 230 has provided nearly bulletproof protection.^[25]

That nearly bulletproof protection continued to protect social media platforms throughout the 2010s, as they took on an increasingly active role in the presentation of content to their users.

Take Facebook. When it launched, it wasn’t actually all that social—users created profile pages, and could view the profile pages of their friends, but there wasn’t any way to engage with other users in a public-facing way. When Facebook first moved to a “news feed” model, wherein a user could see their friends’ updates in a single feed, those updates were presented chronologically. It wasn’t until Facebook started inserting non-friends’ info into users’ feed and presenting content based on what an algorithm “recommended” for the user that the platform began to look like it does today.

An algorithm is a sequence of instructions designed to perform a specific computation. Modern computing means algorithms can incorporate hundreds or thousands of data points, called “signals,” to reach a conclusion. In the social media context, the “algorithm” is the set of instructions that a platform uses to determine what content to present to the user, and in what order. The more time a person spends on a platform, and the more information they provide about themselves, the more accurate the algorithm can be.

The amount of data collected by social media platforms over the years allows them to create enormously detailed, personal profiles of their users. People talk about their personal lives, work troubles, family issues, hopes, dreams, their fears with their online communities, all of which is turned into signals for the algorithm. TikTok’s rapid ascent to become one of the most popular social media platforms among teens is credited to its algorithm’s impeccable ability to predict what video a user would enjoy next; some people said the algorithm knew them better than they knew themselves.^[26]

The thing about an algorithm is, it can be programmed for any result. An algorithm can be tailored to prioritize content from the user’s friends and family, or to produce fewer scary videos late at night, or to flood everyone’s feeds with videos about bees—the platform picks the desired conclusion. Virtually every platform, however, uses their algorithm to keep users on the platform as long as possible, because that’s how they make money. Social media is free because the cost of providing the platform infrastructure is dwarfed by the value of the individualized data they collect from their users—data that is used to sell precisely targeted ad space.^[27] The more time a user spends on the platform, the more data the platform can collect (to hone its own user profile), and the more ads the user will see. In the words of Dr. Margaret McCarney, “if we don’t pay for the product, dear colleagues—we are the product.”^[28]

For the 2025 fiscal year, Meta (the parent company of Facebook and Instagram) reported $83.28 billion in income from $200.97 billion in revenues, an increase of 20 percent over 2024.^[29] Ads on the social media platform YouTube generated $40.3 billion in revenues for Alphabet in 2025.^[30] TikTok generated an estimated $23 billion in revenue in 2024; precise numbers are hard to come by because TikTok is privately held.^[31]

5. Social media usage and its effects

As of 2025, the vast majority of American adults and teens use social media. Among adults, the top platforms are YouTube (84 percent of American adults), Facebook (71 percent), and Instagram (50 percent).^[32] Among teens, the top platforms are YouTube (90 percent of American teens), TikTok (68 percent), and Instagram (63 percent).^[33] About half of adults say that they go on Facebook or YouTube at least once a day.^[34] Daily use of YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram is at 76 percent, 61 percent, and 55 percent of teens, respectively; 21 percent of teens report using TikTok, and 17 percent of teens report using YouTube, “almost constantly.”^[35]

As discussed above in Comment 4, algorithms are amoral. An algorithm is a bit of code, not a thinking thing, so unless the algorithm designer adds guardrails, the algorithm is going to reach its conclusion without factoring in the potential for unintended consequences. In the case of social media algorithms designed to maximize engagement, it turns out that the best way to keep a person online is to make them mad, insecure, and paranoid. And the platforms know this—they have for years.

The Senate Committee on Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee’s analysis of this bill provides a thorough overview of the harms caused by social media platforms and the evidence that the platforms knew that their engagement-maximization algorithms were harming users, particularly minors. That analysis is incorporated herein by reference.

6. Recent cases rejecting Section 230 immunity

This decade, courts have rejected the application of Section 230 in a number of cases alleging harm caused by features or elements of the platform itself, not content published by other users. Some of the most significant cases are discussed below.

a. Lemmon v. Snap, Inc.

In 2017, two 17-year-olds and a 20-year old died in a fiery car crash.^[36] They were going 113 miles an hour and documenting it for Snapchat when the car lost control and hit a tree.^[37] They were using Snapchat’s “Speed Filter,” which could be overlayed over a user’s live video.^[38] Two of the young men’s parents sued Snap for negligent design, alleging that the company was well aware that the Speed Filter was encouraging users to speed dangerously, and that the Speed Filter had led to at least three accidents prior to the crash.^[39]

The district court dismissed the parents’ complaint on the ground that Snap was immune from liability under Section 230.^[40] On appeal, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling.^[41] The court explained that the parents’ claim for negligent design “rests on the premise that manufacturers have a ‘duty to exercise due care in supplying products that do not present an unreasonable risk of injury or harm to the public,’ ” a duty that “differs markedly from the duties of publishers as defined in [Section 230].”^[42] The fact that Snap allowed users to transmit speed data to other users did not override Snap’s duty as a manufacturer to design a safe product.^[43]

b. Anderson v. Tiktok, Inc.

TikTok’s “For You Page” (FYP) is where a user views content recommended by TikTok’s algorithm.^[44] TikTok’s algorithm recommended a “Blackout Challenge” video on ten-year-old Nylah’s FYP.^[45] The ‘Blackout Challenge…encourages users to choke themselves with belts, purse strings, or anything similar until passing out.’ ”^[46] Nylah attempted to recreate the Blackout Challenge and died of asphyxiation.^[47]

The district court dismissed Nylah’s mother’s products liability and negligence claims on Section 230 immunity grounds.^[48] The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that TikTok’s recommendation of the Blackout Challenge video on a user’s FYP is expressive conduct distinct from the conduct of the party who created the video: “Section 230 immunizes only information provided by another, and here, because the information that forms the basis of Anderson’s lawsuit—i.e., TikTok’s recommendations via its FYP algorithm—is TikTok’s own expressive activity, § 230 does not bar [the parent’s] claims.”^[49]

c. P.F., et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al. (Social Media Cases)

In 2022, hundreds of lawsuits alleging harms caused by Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube were consolidated into a Joint Counsel Coordination Proceeding (JCCP) in the Los Angeles Superior Court.^[50] JCCPs are used when civil actions pending in different superior courts share a common question of law or fact that predominates the litigation, such that litigating each separate case would be inefficient and risk duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments. The cases in the social media JCCP asserted a range of claims, including for defective design, failure to warn, negligence, and fraudulent concealment (against Meta only).^[51] All of the cases share the legal question of whether, as the defendants argued, Section 230 bars the plaintiffs’ claims.

Judge Carolyn Kuhl, the judge assigned to the JCCP, ruled that social media platforms are not “products” for purposes of liability claims, but that claims for negligence, and for fraudulent concealment against the Meta defendants, could move forward.^[52] Judge Kuhl relied on Lemmon to rule that claims based on the platforms’ interactive features, which plaintiffs allege operate to addict and harm minor users regardless of the particular third-party content, were not within the scope of Section 230’s liability.^[53]

The JCCP’s first “bellwether” trial—a case selected as a test case to give the parties a sense of the likely outcomes in the rest of the cases—concluded in January of this year. The jury found Meta and YouTube liable for negligently designing their platforms and awarded the plaintiff $6 million in damages.^[54] Judge Kuhl denied the defendants’ motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial.^[55] The next bellwether trial is scheduled for July of this year.

d. New Mexico v. Meta Platforms

New Mexico’s Attorney General sued Meta for misleading consumers about the safety of its products under New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act.^[56] The case went to trial after the judge rejected Meta’s arguments that the claims were barred by Section 230.^[57] The jury found Meta liable and assessed the maximum civil penalties available under the statute—$5,000 per violation—for a total of $375 million.^[58]

7. This bill creates an enhanced remedy available to a minor who was harmed by a social media platform as a result of the platform’s negligence

This bill does not create a new cause of action. Instead, the bill increases the remedies available to a person who was harmed as a minor by a social media platform’s failure to act with ordinary care, as required by Section 1714. Specifically, the bill permits such a plaintiff to seek the greater of (1) $5,000 per violation, up to a per-child maximum of $1 million; or (2) three times the amount of the child’s actual damages. The enhanced remedy is cumulative to existing remedies, and the duty recognized by this bill does not supplant any other duties a social media platform may have under the law. The bill also clarifies that these enhanced remedies will be available only prospectively, and will not apply in any legal case pending on or before January 1, 2027.

The Senate Committee on Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee considered this bill from an overall policy standpoint and passed it with a vote of 6-0. This analysis, therefore, focuses on the legal issues implicated by the bill, including the opposition’s argument that the bill would violate federal or constitutional law.

The author has agreed to an eight-year sunset on the bill.

8. Does Section 230 preempt this bill?

The short answer is no.

The longer answer is, Section 230 will be relevant in determining whether a social platform had a duty of care in a particular circumstance, but Section 230 does not provide blanket immunity for a platform’s own negligence such that Section 230 preempts this bill.^[59] Section 1714 establishes the basic duty of care that governs interactions absent a more specific duty: each person must exercise, in their own activities, reasonable care for the safety of others.^[60] Section 1714’s duty of ordinary care applies to corporations as well as to actual human people.^[61]

Under Lemmon, which is the prevailing law in the Ninth Circuit, a platform can be liable for negligence that is distinct from the platform’s republication of third-party content.^[62] Judge Kuhl relied on this legal framework to allow the JCCP to proceed to the trial stage. The opposition has not provided any cases, in the Ninth Circuit or otherwise, establishing that social media platforms, uniquely among all other people and businesses, get off scot-free when they fail to exercise reasonable care for the safety of others.

So yes, in any lawsuit that seeks the enhanced remedy available under this bill, the court will have to determine whether the alleged breach of duty stems from the platform’s status as a publisher or from the platform’s own negligence. This is exactly what the courts are already doing. This bill does not alter that underlying liability framework; it merely increases the potential damages award in suits that are permitted to proceed.

9. Does the First Amendment absolve social media of duty of ordinary care?

The bill’s opponents argue that this bill violates social media platforms’ First Amendment rights. This analysis will take a few of those arguments in turn.

“AB 2 seeks to regulate speech by requiring platforms to exercise ‘ordinary care and skill’ for teen users.”

Social media platforms already owe a duty of ordinary care and skill to all users.^[63]

“This will inevitably lead to lawsuits based on harmful content as well as content-serving features, both of which violate first amendment principles.[] These applications of the bill are likely subject to ‘heightened scrutiny’ because they are neither content- nor speaker-neutral (i.e., they impose liability for disseminating some types of content but not others and distinguish between large social media platforms and other services).”

Section 1714 is content-neutral and speaker-neutral.^[64] This bill does not impose any new duties with respect to content moderation or require a platform to block or restrict access to any particular content.

“AB 2 is unconstitutional because it imposes liability on social media platforms for whether certain types of third-party content are shown to young users, as well as the expressive choices social media platforms make in designing the user experience”

This bill does not impose liability on anyone. This bill adds additional remedies to already-existing causes of action.

“Courts have repeatedly upheld and protected platforms’ First Amendment rights to decide how to moderate and present content on their platforms.”

The opposition is correct that courts have held a that platform’s “editorial judgment” in presenting content can be expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.^[65] But the First Amendment right to engage in expressive conduct does not immunize anyone, including social media platforms, when their expressive conduct falls below the duty of ordinary care and results in harm.^[66]

“AB 2 also directly interferes with the expressive rights of both the minors who will be banned from social media services and the service providers themselves. The imposition of liability for harm to a minor (the bill does not require the provider to know that a user is under 18 to trigger liability) amounts to a requirement to age verify all users of social media services, interfering with constitutionally-protected rights of adults and minors alike.”

Again, this bill does not impose any new liability.

“To the extent AB 2 has the practical effect of foreclosing minors’ access to social media ‘altogether’ (e.g., because the bill makes it practically impossible for social media platforms to offer their services to children in California), the law would raise grave concerns under the First Amendment.”

This appears to be an argument that, if a social media platform is not confident that it can exercise ordinary care and skill towards its users, the First Amendment compels the state to permit the platform to operate negligently. Committee staff are unaware of any statutes or case law to that effect.

10. Arguments in support

According to a coalition of the bill’s supporters:

This bill establishes statutory damages under California’s existing negligence law for harms to minors related to social media that can be proven in court. That is the only change to California law that this bill makes. These financial penalties are needed and intended to motivate large social media companies to do what they currently refuse to do - ensure that the way they design and operate their platforms does not injure young users. There is mounting evidence, including from internal company communications, that social media platforms contribute to our youth mental health crisis and to other direct harms to kids and teens, including accessing fentanyl and other illegal drugs.

As the use of social media continues to climb among children and adolescents, so too does the urgency for legislative action. AB 2 offers a path to mitigate the risks faced by our youth in an increasingly connected world, ensuring that social media companies operate with the due care our children deserve.

Again, AB 2 makes no other change to California law other than to introduce specific financial liabilities for platforms whose products or designs are proven in court to result in harm to minors, incentivizing those companies to prioritize the safety of their younger users.

In light of the compelling association between social media use and injuries to young users, including effects on their mental well-being, we strongly urge your support for AB 2. Your action on this bill will be a significant step toward protecting our children and teens from the avoidable harms perpetuated through the negligence of social media companies.

11. Arguments in opposition

According to the Chamber of Progress:

Despite widespread concerns about social media’s impact on youth mental health, the vast majority of experts agree that current research does not support a direct causal link between teen social media use and negative mental health outcomes. The American Psychological Association (APA) stated that “using social media is not inherently beneficial or harmful to young people” as “adolescents’ lives online both reflect and impact their offline lives.”

Similarly, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s 2023 analysis found no evidence that social media causes widespread negative health changes among adolescents, countering the dominant cultural narrative that it is universally harmful.

Holding the belief that social media is inherently harmful overlooks its many benefits, particularly for those who rely on it for support and connection. The APA also highlights how online interactions can be especially valuable for youth experiencing adversity, social isolation, or stress. Social media can also serve as a lifeline for individuals struggling with mental health issues. The Lancet’s recent Commission on Self-Harm finds that social media use may have protective effects for individuals at risk of self-harm who are isolated or otherwise have difficulties forming in-person connections. AB 2 threatens access to these very important resources for struggling youth.

SUPPORT

Common Sense Media (sponsor)

California Charter Schools Association

California Initiative for Technology & Democracy

California School Boards Association

California Teachers Supporting Gender Non-Conforming Youth

Children’s Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law

Consumer Federation of California

Distraction-Free Schools CA

Healthier Tech-Inc.

Jewish Family and Children's Services of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties

Los Angeles County Office of Education

NextGen California

Organization for Social Media Safety

Parent Collective

San Marcos Parents for Intentional Tech

Schools Beyond Screens CVUSD

Schools Beyond Screens LVUSD

Schools Beyond Screens San Diego

ScreenSense

Tech in Check

Tech Oversight California
The Hebrew Academy

OPPOSITION

California Chamber of Commerce

Chamber of Progress

Computer & Communications Industry Association

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Technet

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: AB 1709 (Lowenthal) prohibits a covered platform, as defined, from allowing a person under the age of 16 to create or maintain an account on a covered platform, as specified. AB 1709 is pending before this Committee and is set to be heard on the same date as this bill.

Prior Legislation:

AB 1043 (Wicks, Ch. 675, Stats. 2025) establishes the Digital Age Assurance Act, which creates a signaling infrastructure that allows developers to rely on a real-time, secure indicator of a user′s age bracket for purposes of complying with other California laws that require age verification or parental consent; and provides that a developer that receives a signal indicating a user’s age shall be deemed to have actual knowledge of the user’s age even if the developer willfully disregards the signal and requires a developer to treat a signal indicating a user’s age as the primary indicator of a user’s age for purposes of determining the user’s age.

AB 3172 (Lowenthal, 2024) was substantially similar to this bill but was amended to limit these enhanced remedies to actions brought by public prosecutors and raised the standard of care necessary to seek such remedies. AB 3172 died on the Senate Floor.

SB 287 (Skinner, 2023) would have subjected social media platforms to civil liability for damages caused by their designs, algorithms, or features, as provided. It would have provided a safe harbor where certain auditing practices are carried out. SB 287 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

PRIOR VOTES

Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee (Ayes 6, Noes 0)

Assembly Floor (Ayes 66, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 9, Noes 0)

Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee (Ayes 9, Noes 0)

**************

1. Pew Research Center, Report: Americans Going Online…Explosive Growth, Uncertain Destinations (Oct. 16, 1996) available at www.pewresearch.org/politics/1995/10/16/americans-going-online-explosive-growth-uncertain-destinations/#online-numbers. All links in this analysis are current as of June 27, 2026. ↑

2. See Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy Servs. Co. (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 26, 1995) 1995 WL 323710. ↑

3. E.g., Kosseff, The Twenty-Six Words That Created The Internet (2019). ↑

4. Ibid. ↑

5. Id. at pp. *2, 5. ↑

6. Id. at p. *3. ↑

7. Kosseff, supra, at pp. 57-65. ↑

8. 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). ↑

9. Id., § 230(c)(1) & (2). ↑

10. Id., § 230(e)(1) & (3). ↑

11. Kosseff, supra, at pp. 94-95; see, e.g., Doe v. MySpace Inc. (5th Cir. 2008) 528 F.3d 413, 421-422; Carfano v. Metrospalsh.com, Inc. (9th Cir. 2003) 339 F.3d 1119, 1125; Zeran v. America Online, Inc. (4th Cir. 1997) 129 F.3d 327, 333-334. ↑

12. (4th Cir. 1997) 129 F.3d 327. ↑

13. Id. at p. 329. ↑

14. Ibid. ↑

15. Ibid. ↑

16. Ibid. ↑

17. Id. at pp. 329-330. ↑

18. Id. at p. 328. ↑

19. E.g., id. at pp. 331-332. ↑

20. See, e.g., Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC (6th Cir. 2014) 755 F.3d 398, 415; Batzel v. Smith (9th Cir. 2003) 333 F.3d 1018, 1030-1031; cf. Blumenthal v. Drudge (D.D.C. 1998) 992 F.Supp. 44, 51-52. ↑

21. Zeran, supra, 129 F.3d at p. 332. ↑

22. See Kosseff, supra, p. 81. ↑

23. Leskin, These are 13 of the most popular social networks a decade ago that have died or faded into obscurity, (Dec. 23, 2019) Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/aim-myspace-club-penguin-social-apps-popular-2010-decade-2019-11. One could also argue that LiveJournal, founded in 1999, should get the title. (Ibid.) ↑

24. Kosseff, supra, p. 122. ↑

25. Id. at p. 124. ↑

26. Smith, How TikTok Reads Your Mind (Dec. 5, 2021), New York Times, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/05/business/media/tiktok-algorithm.html. ↑

27. E.g., Meta Platforms, Inc., Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, p.15, available at https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001326801/000162828026003942/meta-20251231.htm#icc066a9e83ae4c46b57ee4d9dc9d7021_19 (“Substantially all of our revenue is currently generated from marketers advertising on Facebook and Instagram.”). ↑

28. McCartney, If you don’t pay for it you are the product (2018) BMJ, available at https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/362/bmj.k3249.full.pdf. ↑

29. Meta 10-K, supra at p. 60, available at https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001326801/000162828026003942/meta-20251231.htm#icc066a9e83ae4c46b57ee4d9dc9d7021_49. ↑

30. Alphabet Inc., Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, p. 60, available at https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204426000018/goog-20251231.htm#i6be430fe3ebf411481dcec8b0abe9149_187. ↑

31. Curry, TikTok Revenue and Usage Statistics (2026) (June 11, 2026) Business of Apps, https://www.businessofapps.com/data/tik-tok-statistics/. ↑

32. Gottfried & Park, Americans’ Social Media Use 2025 (Nov. 20, 2025) Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/11/20/americans-social-media-use-2025/. ↑

33. Faverio & Sidoti, Teens, Social Media and AI Chatbots 2025 (Dec. 9, 2025) Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/12/09/teens-social-media-and-ai-chatbots-2025/. Snapchat, used by 55 percent of American teens, is a close fourth. (Ibid.) ↑

34. Gottfried & Park, supra. ↑

35. Faverio & Sidoti, supra. ↑

36. Lemmon v. Snap, Inc. (9th Cir. 2021) 995 F.3d 1085, 1088. ↑

37. Ibid. ↑

38. Ibid. ↑

39. Id.at pp. 1089-1090. ↑

40. Id. at p. 1090. ↑

41. Id. at p. 1095. ↑

42. Id.at p. 1092. ↑

43. Ibid. ↑

44. Anderson v. TikTok (9th Cir. 2024) 116 F.4th 180, 182. ↑

45. Ibid. ↑

46. Ibid. ↑

47. Ibid. ↑

48. Ibid. ↑

49. Id. at p. 1084 (cleaned up). ↑

50. See In re Social Media Cases, JCCP5255, Master Complaint. ↑

51. See id., pp. 255-292. ↑

52. See In re Social Media Cases, JCCP5255, Order (Oct. 13, 2023) p. 2. ↑

53. Id. at pp. 59-61. Judge Kuhl reiterated her ruling in response to Meta’s motion for summary judgment. (In re Social Media Cases, JCCP5255, Order (Nov. 5, 2025). ↑

54. Allyn, Jury finds Meta and Google Negligent in social media harms trial (Mar. 26, 2026) NPR, https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5746125/meta-youtube-social-media-trial-verdict. Snap and TikTok settled with the plaintiff prior to trial, but they remain defendants in the overall JCCP. (Ibid.) ↑

55. In re Social Media Cases, JCCP5255, Order (Jun. 9, 2026) p. 1. ↑

56. McQue, Meta ordered to pay $375m after being found liable in child exploitation case (Mar. 24, 2026) The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/24/meta-new-mexico-jury. ↑

57. Ibid. ↑

58. Ibid. ↑

59. See 47 U.S.C. § 230(e) (state laws that are inconsistent with Section 230 are preempted). ↑

60. Civ. Code, § 1714(a); Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2021) 11 Cal.5th 204, 214. ↑

61. E.g., Safechuck v. MJJ Productions, Inc. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 675, 680. ↑

62. Lemmon, supra, 995 F.3d at p. 1093. ↑

63. Civ. Code, § 1714(a). ↑

64. Ibid. ↑

65. See Moody v. NetChoice LLC (2024) 603 U.S. 707, 718. ↑

66. See Anderson, supra, 116 F.4th at p. 182; cf. Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. (1985) 472 U.S. 1985, 602 (“[T]he word ‘right’ is one of the most deceptive of pitfalls; it is so easy to slip from a qualified meaning in the premise to an unqualified one in the conclusion. Most rights are qualified.” (internal quotation marks omitted).) ↑

SENATE PRIVACY, DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION COMMITTEE

Senator Christopher Cabaldon, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 2 (Author:Lowenthal)

Version: April 3, 2025

Hearing Date: June 15, 2026

Fiscal: No

Urgency: No

Consultant: CK

SUBJECT

Injuries to children: civil penalties

DIGEST

This bill increases the penalties that can be sought against a social media platform, as defined, if the platform fails to exercise ordinary care or skill and injures a child.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Today, over 70 percent of adults use at least one social media platform. Facebook alone is used by 69 percent of adults, and 70 percent of those adults say they use the platform on a daily basis. However, this explosion is not limited to adults. Survey data found that overall screen use among teens and tweens increased by 17 percent from 2019 to 2021, with the number of hours spent online spiking sharply during the pandemic. A recent survey found almost 40 percent of tweens stated that they use social media and estimates from 2018 put the number of teens on the sites at over 70 percent. Given the reach of social media and the increasing role they play in many children’s lives, concerns have arisen over the connection between social media usage and mental health, drug use, and other self-harming conduct.

This bill seeks to address these issues by simply enhancing the remedies that can be sought against a social media platform that breaches its existing duty of ordinary care and skill to a child. Based on existing causes of action under negligence law, this bill provides for statutory damages of $5,000 to $1 million per violation or three times the amount of the child’s actual damages, whichever is larger.

This bill is supported by various groups, including the Los Angeles County Office of Education and Common Sense Media. It is opposed by a number of industry associations, including Technet and the Computer and Communications Industry Association. Should the bill pass out of this Committee, it will next be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing federal law:

1. Provides, in federal law, that a provider or user of an interactive computer service shall not be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).)
2. Provides that a provider or user of an interactive computer service shall not be held liable on account of:
   1. any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
   2. any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to such material. (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2).)

Existing state law:

1. Provides that every person is responsible, not only for the result of their willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by the person’s want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon themselves. (Civ. Code § 1714(a) (“Section 1714(a)”).)
2. Defines “social media platform” as a public or semipublic internet-based service or application that has users in California and that meets both of the following criteria:
   1. A substantial function of the service or application is to connect users in order to allow users to interact socially with each other within the service or application. A service or application that provides email or direct messaging services shall not be considered to meet this criterion on the basis of that function alone.
   2. The service or application allows users to do all of the following:
      1. Construct a public or semipublic profile for purposes of signing into and using the service or application.
      2. Populate a list of other users with whom an individual shares a social connection within the system.
      3. Create or post content viewable by other users, including, but not limited to, on message boards, in chat rooms, or through a landing page or main feed that presents the user with content generated by other users. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 22675(e).)

This bill:

1. Provides that a social media platform that violates Section 1714(a) by causing injury to a child shall, in addition to any other remedy, be liable for statutory damages for the larger of the following:
   1. $5,000 per violation up to a maximum, per child, of $1,000,000.
   2. Three times the amount of the child’s actual damages.
2. Aligns the definition of “social media platform” with that in Section 22675 of the Business and Professions Code, and limits application of the bill to those platforms that generate more than $100 million per year in gross revenues.
3. Provides that the duties, remedies, and obligations it imposes are cumulative to the duties, remedies, or obligations imposed under other law and shall not be construed to relieve a social media platform from any duties, remedies, or obligations imposed under any other law.
4. Includes a severability clause and applies prospectively.
5. Provides that any attempted waiver is void and unenforceable.
6. States specified findings and declarations.

COMMENTS

1. Social media and children

The effects of social media on our mental health and what should and can be done about it are pressing policy and societal questions that have become increasingly urgent. Evidence shows that engagement on social media has a clear effect on our emotions.

Researchers conducted a massive experiment on Facebook involving almost 700,000 users to test the emotional effects of social networks:

The results show emotional contagion. [For] people who had positive content reduced in their News Feed, a larger percentage of words in people’s status updates were negative and a smaller percentage were positive. When negativity was reduced, the opposite pattern occurred. These results suggest that the emotions expressed by friends, via online social networks, influence our own moods, constituting, to our knowledge, the first experimental evidence for massive-scale emotional contagion via social networks [. . .] and providing support for previously contested claims that emotions spread via contagion through a network.^[1]

Research has shown that amongst American teenagers, YouTube, Instagram, and Snapchat are the most popular social media sites, and 45 percent of teenagers stated that they are “online almost constantly.”^[2] A meta-analysis of research on social networking site (SNS) use concluded the studies supported an association between problematic SNS use and psychiatric disorder symptoms, particularly in adolescents.^[3] The study found most associations were with depression and anxiety.

As pointed out by Wall Street Journal reporting, the companies’ employees are aware of the dangers:

A Facebook Inc. team had a blunt message for senior executives. The company’s algorithms weren’t bringing people together. They were driving people apart.

“Our algorithms exploit the human brain’s attraction to divisiveness,” read a slide from a 2018 presentation. “If left unchecked,” it warned, Facebook would feed users “more and more divisive content in an effort to gain user attention & increase time on the platform.”

That presentation went to the heart of a question dogging Facebook almost since its founding: Does its platform aggravate polarization and tribal behavior?

The answer it found, in some cases, was yes.^[4]

A New York Times article on leadership at Facebook elaborates:

To achieve its record-setting growth, [Facebook] had continued building on its core technology, making business decisions based on how many hours of the day people spent on Facebook and how many times a day they returned. Facebook’s algorithms didn’t measure if the magnetic force pulling them back to Facebook was the habit of wishing a friend happy birthday, or a rabbit hole of conspiracies and misinformation.

Facebook’s problems were features, not bugs.^[5]

A series of startling revelations unfolded after a Facebook whistle-blower, Frances Haugen, began sharing internal documents. The Wall Street Journal published many of the findings:

About a year ago, teenager Anastasia Vlasova started seeing a therapist. She had developed an eating disorder, and had a clear idea of what led to it: her time on Instagram.

She joined the platform at 13, and eventually was spending three hours a day entranced by the seemingly perfect lives and bodies of the fitness influencers who posted on the app.

“When I went on Instagram, all I saw were images of chiseled bodies, perfect abs and women doing 100 burpees in 10 minutes,” said Ms. Vlasova, now 18, who lives in Reston, Va.

Around that time, researchers inside Instagram, which is owned by Facebook Inc., were studying this kind of experience and asking whether it was part of a broader phenomenon. Their findings confirmed some serious problems.

“Thirty-two percent of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel worse,” the researchers said in a March 2020 slide presentation posted to Facebook’s internal message board, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. “Comparisons on Instagram can change how young women view and describe themselves.”

For the past three years, Facebook has been conducting studies into how its photo-sharing app affects its millions of young users. Repeatedly, the company’s researchers found that Instagram is harmful for a sizable percentage of them, most notably teenage girls.

“We make body image issues worse for one in three teen girls,” said one slide from 2019, summarizing research about teen girls who experience the issues.

“Teens blame Instagram for increases in the rate of anxiety and depression,” said another slide. “This reaction was unprompted and consistent across all groups.”

Among teens who reported suicidal thoughts, 13% of British users and 6% of American users traced the desire to kill themselves to Instagram, one presentation showed.

Expanding its base of young users is vital to the company’s more than $100 billion in annual revenue, and it doesn’t want to jeopardize their engagement with the platform.

More than 40% of Instagram’s users are 22 years old and younger, and about 22 million teens log onto Instagram in the U.S. each day . . . .^[6]

The released documents from Instagram make clear that “Facebook is acutely aware that the products and systems central to its business success routinely fail”:

The features that Instagram identifies as most harmful to teens appear to be at the platform’s core.

The tendency to share only the best moments, a pressure to look perfect and an addictive product can send teens spiraling toward eating disorders, an unhealthy sense of their own bodies and depression, March 2020 internal research states. It warns that the Explore page, which serves users photos and videos curated by an algorithm, can send users deep into content that can be harmful.

“Aspects of Instagram exacerbate each other to create a perfect storm,” the research states.^[7]

The referenced documents revealed that Facebook’s own internal research found “1 in 8 of its users reported compulsive social media use that interfered with their sleep, work, and relationships— what the social media platform calls ‘problematic use’ but is more commonly known as ‘internet addiction.’”^[8]

There are various features of social media that are believed to contribute to excessive social media use and preoccupation and attendant mental health issues in children and that are repeatedly highlighted as the most problematic for users, especially children. They are pinpointed by academic research,^[9] and lawsuits brought by most states’ Attorneys General,^[10] as the core of the problem. These include the display of “likes” and other feedback on posted media that drive minors’ unhealthy comparisons to others and their obsessive usage.

In addition, the constant notifications that are sent to users nudge them back onto a platform throughout the day and night to seek the next hit of dopamine. The biggest and most central of them all is the algorithmic feeds that are fueled by a user’s own information and inferences drawn from their past behavior and data collected from other sources. While these features can effectively serve up content curated for a user’s personal tastes and create social connections among users, it is these types of features that are most concerning to advocates for reform.

1. Ensuring social media platforms are held accountable for the harms they cause

Existing negligence law imposes a responsibility on everyone, including social media platforms, for injuries occasioned to others by their want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their property or person. This bill does not alter any existing duty. Rather, it seeks to acknowledge the unique impacts that social media platforms are shown to have on a particularly vulnerable population, California’s children.

The bill does this by increasing the remedies that children may seek when social media platforms break this existing duty to refrain from causing them injury. The bill provides for statutory damages from $5,000 to $1 million per violation, per child or three times the child’s actual damages, whichever is more.

According to the author:

AB 2 amends Section 1714 of the Civil Code by adding statutory damages against platforms that are found in court to be liable under current law for negligently causing harm to children under the age of 18. Under the bill, if a company is proven to have failed to exercise its already established duty of operating with ordinary care, the company becomes financially liable for a set amount of $5,000 per violation, up to a maximum penalty of $1 million per child, or three times the amount of the child’s actual damages, whichever is applicable. This financial liability aims to incentivize platforms who count their profits in the tens of billions to proactively safeguard children against potential harm by changing how they operate their platforms.

1. Legal considerations

Concerns have been raised about whether the bill runs afoul of federal statutory and constitutional law. Namely, whether the bill is preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, or violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. As stated above, the bill will next be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee should it pass out of this Committee, but a brief overview of the relevant legal landscape is provided below.

1. Section 230

Section 230 does not apply to the users of social media (or the internet generally), but rather applies to the platforms themselves. In the early 1990s, prior to the enactment of Section 230, two trial court orders—one in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and New York state court—suggested that internet platforms could be held liable for allegedly defamatory statements made by the platforms’ users if the platforms engaged in any sort of content moderation (e.g., filtering out offensive material).^[11] In response, two federal legislators and members of the burgeoning internet industry crafted a law that would give internet platforms immunity from liability for users’ statements, even if they might have reason to know that statements might be false, defamatory, or otherwise actionable.^[12] The result—Section 230—was relatively uncontroversial at the time, in part because of the relative novelty of the internet and in part because Section 230 was incorporated into a much more controversial internet regulation scheme that was the subject of greater debate.^[13]

The crux of Section 230 is laid out in two parts. The first provides that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”^[14] The second provides a safe harbor for content moderation, by stating that no provider or user shall be held liable because of good-faith efforts to restrict access to material that is “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”^[15]

Together, these two provisions give platforms immunity from any civil or criminal liability that could be incurred by user statements, while explicitly authorizing platforms to engage in their own content moderation without risking that immunity. Section 230 specifies that “[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State law that is inconsistent with this section.”^[16] Courts have applied Section 230 in a vast range of cases to immunize internet platforms from “virtually all suits arising from third-party content.”^[17]

This bill does not specifically address content at all. In fact, it does not alter any existing obligation, but merely alters the remedies.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc. (9th Cir. 2009) 570 F.3d 1096, 1100-01 established a three-part test for assessing the immunities of Section 230 on claims against platforms: “[I]t appears that subsection (c)(1) only protects from liability (1) a provider or user of an interactive computer service (2) whom a plaintiff seeks to treat, under a state law cause of action, as a publisher or speaker (3) of information provided by another information content provider.”

This test was applied by the Ninth Circuit in Lemmon v. Snap, Inc. (9th Cir. 2021) 995 F.3d 1085. In that case, the parents of minor decedents sued Snap, the owner and operator of Snapchat, a social media application. At issue was the use of a filter provided by Snapchat that allowed users to record their real-life speed and overlay it over photos or video. The plaintiffs’ children opened Snapchat and used the filter shortly before their fatal high-speed car crash. The opinion states that “[t]o keep its users engaged, Snapchat rewards them with ‘trophies, streaks, and social recognitions’ based on the snaps they send. Snapchat, however, does not tell its users how to earn these various achievements” but that many users believed hitting 100 miles per hour using the filter would result in such rewards. According to the opinion: “Snapchat allegedly knew or should have known, before May 28, 2017, that its users believed that such a reward system existed and that the Speed Filter was therefore incentivizing young drivers to drive at dangerous speeds.”

The parents filed a negligent design lawsuit against Snap, and the district court agreed with Snap’s argument that Section 230 immunity foreclosed such a suit, granting Snap’s motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit turned to the Barnes v. Yahoo test. After acknowledging the first element was met, it turned to the second:

The second Barnes question asks whether a cause of action seeks to treat a defendant as a “publisher or speaker” of third-party content. We conclude that here the answer is no, because the Parents’ claim turns on Snap’s design of Snapchat.

In this particular context, “publication” generally “involve[s] reviewing, editing, and deciding whether to publish or to withdraw from publication third-party content.” A defamation claim is perhaps the most obvious example of a claim that seeks to treat a website or smartphone application provider as a publisher or speaker, but it is by no means the only type of claim that does so. Thus, regardless of the type of claim brought, we focus on whether “the duty the plaintiff alleges” stems “from the defendant’s status or conduct as a publisher or speaker.”

Here, the Parents seek to hold Snap liable for its allegedly “unreasonable and negligent” design decisions regarding Snapchat. They allege that Snap created: (1) Snapchat; (2) Snapchat’s Speed Filter; and (3) an incentive system within Snapchat that encouraged its users to pursue certain unknown achievements and rewards. The Speed Filter and the incentive system then supposedly worked in tandem to entice young Snapchat users to drive at speeds exceeding 100 MPH.

The Parents thus allege a cause of action for negligent design—a common products liability tort. This type of claim rests on the premise that manufacturers have a “duty to exercise due care in supplying products that do not present an unreasonable risk of injury or harm to the public.” Thus, a negligent design action asks whether a reasonable person would conclude that “the reasonably foreseeable harm” of a product, manufactured in accordance with its design, “outweigh[s] the utility of the product.”

The duty underlying such a claim differs markedly from the duties of publishers as defined in the CDA.^[18]

Writing in opposition, a coalition of industry groups, including TechNet argue the bill is likely preempted by Section 230:

Section 230 explicitly preempts state laws such as AB 2 that would conflict with this protection. This bill creates liability for platforms based on third party content by applying to any feature that allows users to encounter content. It effectively assumes that all features are harmful and imposes liability on a site for offering any of those features to children. Platforms’ algorithms and features that allow users to encounter or share content from other users are inextricably linked to the underlying content. Therefore, by imposing liability on platforms for these features, AB 2 conflicts with Section 230 and is likely preempted.

It should be noted that the operative part of the bill does not reference features or content. Existing negligence law has always applied to social media platforms, and as seen in cases such as Lemmon, platforms can be held liable for the injuries they negligently cause without triggering Section 230 preemption.

More recently, several high-profile cases have been filed against some of the biggest social media platforms, alleging their negligence caused harm to children. One such case in Los Angeles focused not on the content present on the platforms but on the “defective design” of the platforms that caused the children’s harm, including the use of features such as infinite scroll, constant notifications, autoplaying videos, and beauty filters:

A California jury … found that Meta and Google were to blame for the depression and anxiety of a woman who compulsively used social media as a small child, awarding her $6 million in a rare verdict holding Silicon Valley accountable for its role in fueling a youth mental health crisis.

The jurors concluded that Meta and Google should pay the woman $3 million in compensatory damages and an additional $3 million in punitive damages, with Meta on the hook for 70% of that amount.

While the financial punishment is miniscule for companies each worth trillions of dollars, the decision is still consequential. It represents the first time a jury has found that social media apps should be treated as defective products for being engineered to exploit the developing brains of kids and teenagers.^[19]

A separate trial in New Mexico also resulted in a verdict against Meta, ordering it to pay extensive damages for “failing to protect young users from child predators on Instagram and Facebook. The New Mexico jury found Meta responsible for misleading consumers about the safety of its platforms, declaring that the tech company had flouted state consumer protection laws.”^[20]

1. First Amendment

The First Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits Congress or the states from passing any law “abridging the freedom of speech.”^[21] “[A]s a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”^[22] However, while the amendment is written in absolute terms, the courts have created a handful of narrow exceptions to the First Amendment’s protections, including “true threats,”^[23] “fighting words,”^[24] incitement to imminent lawless action,^[25] defamation,^[26] and obscenity.^[27] Expression on the internet is given the same measure of protection granted to in-person speech or statements published in a physical medium.^[28]

A constitutional challenge to a restriction on speech is generally analyzed under one of two frameworks, depending on whether the courts deem it to be “content neutral” or “content based,” i.e., targeting a particular type of speech. A law is content neutral when it “serves purposes unrelated to the content of the expression.”^[29] On the other hand, a law is content based when the proscribed speech is “defined solely on the basis of the content of the suppressed speech.”^[30]  

If a law is determined to be content neutral, it will be subject to intermediate scrutiny, which requires that the law “be ‘narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest.’”^[31] In other words, the law “‘need not be the least restrictive or least intrusive means of’ serving the government’s interests,” but “‘may not regulate expression in such a manner that a substantial portion of the burden on speech does not serve to advance its goals.’”^[32] 

If a restriction on speech is determined to be content based, it will be subject to strict scrutiny.^[33] A restriction is content based “if it require[s] ‘enforcement authorities’ to ‘examine the content of the message that is conveyed to determine whether’ a violation has occurred.”^[34] Content-based restrictions subject to strict scrutiny are “presumptively unconstitutional.”^[35] A restriction can survive strict scrutiny only if it uses the least-restrictive means available to achieve a compelling government purpose.^[36]

The coalition in opposition argues that the bill seeks to regulate speech because it requires “platforms to exercise ‘ordinary care and skill’ for teen users.” Essentially, the argument is that any application of negligence law to platforms is a regulation of speech. The coalition states:

AB 2 is unconstitutional because it imposes liability on social media platforms for whether certain types of third-party content are shown to young users, as well as the expressive choices social media platforms make in designing the user experience. This violates the First Amendment rights of both minors and social media platforms. Courts have repeatedly upheld and protected platforms’ First Amendment rights to decide how to moderate and present content on their platforms. Likewise, because the bill would result in limited or restricted access to teens, it infringes upon their First Amendment rights to receive information and express themselves.

Additionally, the bill’s “overbreadth” appears both “real” and “substantial,”3 and is thus arguably unconstitutional, because it sweeps in social media activity that might negatively affect a relatively small amount of children but prove to be of utility to many more (i.e., organizing children’s social media feeds to highlight content they are more interested in).

AB 2 also directly interferes with the expressive rights of both the minors who will be banned from social media services and the service providers themselves.

Again, the operative part of the bill does not reference content or the moderation choices of platforms. It does not change any basis for liability.

1. Arguments in support

A coalition of organizations, including Common Sense Media, states in support:

This bill establishes statutory damages under California’s existing negligence law for harms to minors related to social media that can be proven in court. That is the only change to California law that this bill makes. These financial penalties are needed and intended to motivate large social media companies to do what they currently refuse to do - ensure that the way they design and operate their platforms does not injure young users. There is mounting evidence, including from internal company communications, that social media platforms contribute to our youth mental health crisis and to other direct harms to kids and teens, including accessing fentanyl and other illegal drugs.

As the use of social media continues to climb among children and adolescents, so too does the urgency for legislative action. AB 2 offers a path to mitigate the risks faced by our youth in an increasingly connected world, ensuring that social media companies operate with the due care our children deserve.

The Los Angeles County Office of Education makes the case for the bill:

Unlike schools, youth-serving agencies, and businesses that are held to high standards of accountability and care, social media companies have operated largely without consequence—even as their platforms increasingly endanger children. These platforms are often engineered to maximize screen time and engagement, prioritizing profits over safety and well-being. Research continues to show the correlation between excessive social media use and adverse youth outcomes, including suicidal ideation, cyberbullying, social isolation, and exposure to violence.

SUPPORT

California Teachers Supporting Gender-nonconforming Youth
Children’s Advocacy Institute
Common Sense Media
Healthier-tech
Hebrew Academy Community Day School
Jewish Family and Children's Services of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Nextgen California
Organization for Social Media Safety
Parent Collective
Safe School Tech
Safe Social Media
San Mateo Foster City School District
Schools Beyond Screens San Diego

OPPOSITION

California Chamber of Commerce
Chamber of Progress
Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC)
Computer and Communications Industry Association
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Technet

RELATED LEGISLATION

AB 1709 (Lowenthal, 2026) prohibits online platforms that offer “addictive feeds” from allowing users under 16 years of age to create accounts. It requires these “covered platforms” to verify the age of users and implement reasonable measures to prevent users under 16 from accessing or using accounts on the platform. AB 1709 also creates an e-Safety Advisory Commission within the Department of Justice. AB 1709 is currently pending referral in the Senate.

SB 976 (Skinner, Ch. 321, Stats. 2024) prohibited operators of “internet-based services or applications” from providing “addictive feeds,” as those terms are defined, to minors without parental consent and from sending notifications to minors at night and during school hours without parental consent, as provided. SB 976 required operators to make available to parents a series of protective measures for controlling access to and features of the platform for their children. It also required reporting on data regarding children on their platforms, as specified.

AB 3172 (Lowenthal, 2024) was largely identical to this bill but took amendments that narrowed the enforcement to public prosecutors and raised the standard of liability to knowingly and willfully. AB 3172 died on the Senate Floor.

AB 1394 (Wicks, Ch. 579, Stats. 2023) required social media platforms to provide a reporting mechanism for suspected child sexual abuse material and requires them to permanently block the material, as provided. It also prohibits platforms from knowingly facilitating, aiding, or abetting minor’s commercial sexual exploitation.

SB 1056 (Umberg, Ch. 881, Stats. 2022) required a social media platform, as defined, to clearly and conspicuously state whether it has a mechanism for reporting violent posts, as defined; and allows a person who is the target, or who believes they are the target, of a violent post to seek an injunction to have the violent post removed.

AB 587 (Gabriel, Ch. 269, Stats. 2022) required social media companies, as defined, to post their terms of service and report certain information to the Attorney General on a quarterly basis.

AB 1628 (Ramos, Ch. 432, Stats. 2022) required a social media platform, as defined, that operates in this state to create and publicly post a policy statement including specified information pertaining to the use of the platform to illegally distribute controlled substances, until January 1, 2028.

AB 2273 (Wicks, Ch. 320, Stats. 2022) established the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, placing a series of obligations and restrictions on businesses that provide online services, products, or features likely to be accessed by children. This includes a prohibition on using the personal information of any child in a way that the business knows or has reason to know is materially detrimental to the physical health, mental health, or well-being of a child. It also requires these businesses to “[e]stimate the age of child users with a reasonable level of certainty appropriate to the risks that arise from the data management practices of the business or apply the privacy and data protections afforded to children to all consumers.”

AB 2408 (Cunningham, 2022) would have prohibited a social media platform from using a design, feature, or affordance that the platform knew, or which by the exercise of reasonable care it should have known, causes child users to become addicted to the platform. AB 2408 died in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

PRIOR VOTES:

Assembly Floor (Ayes 66, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 9, Noes 0)

Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee (Ayes 9, Noes 0)

**************

1. Adam D. I. Kramer et al., Experimental Evidence of Massive-Scale Emotional Contagion through Social Networks (June 17, 2014) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 111, No. 24, https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1320040111. All internet citations are current as of June 1, 2026. ↑

2. Zaheer Hussain and Mark D Griffiths, Problematic Social Networking Site Use and Comorbid Psychiatric Disorders: A Systematic Review of Recent Large-Scale Studies.”
   (December 14, 2018) Frontiers in psychiatry vol. 9 686, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6302102/pdf/fpsyt-09-00686.pdf. ↑

3. Ibid. ↑

4. Jeff Horowitz & Deepa Seetharaman, Facebook Executives Shut Down Efforts to Make the Site Less Divisive (May 26, 2020) Wall Street Journal, https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-it-encourages-division-top-executives-nixed-solutions-11590507499. ↑

5. Sheera Frenkel & Cecilia Kang, Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg’s Partnership Did Not Survive Trump (July 8, 2021) The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/08/business/mark-zuckerberg-sheryl-sandberg-facebook.html. ↑

6. Georgia Wells et al., Facebook Knows Instagram Is Toxic for Teen Girls, Company Documents Show (September 14, 2021) The Wall Street Journal, https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-instagram-is-toxic-for-teen-girls-company-documents-show-11631620739?mod=article_inline. ↑

7. Ibid. ↑

8. Kim Lyons, Facebook reportedly is aware of the level of ‘problematic use’ among its users (November 6, 2021) The Verge, www.theverge.com/2021/11/6/22766935/facebook-meta-aware-problematic-use-addiction-wellbeing. ↑

9. Kirsten Weir, Social media brings benefits and risks to teens. Here’s how psychology can help identify a path forward (September 1, 2023) American Psychological Association, https://www.apa.org/monitor/2023/09/protecting-teens-on-social-media. ↑

10. Matt Richtel, Is Social Media Addictive? Here’s What the Science Says (October 25, 2023) The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/25/health/social-media-addiction.html. ↑

11. See Cubby, Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 1991) 776 F.Supp. 135, 141; Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy Servs. Co. (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 26, 1995) 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 229, *10-14. These opinions relied on case law developed in the context of other media, such as whether bookstores and libraries could be held liable for distributing defamatory material when they had no reason to know the material was defamatory. (See Cubby, Inc., 776 F. Supp. at p. 139; Smith v. California (1959) 361 U.S. 147, 152-153.) ↑

12. Kosseff, The Twenty-Six Words That Created The Internet (2019) pp. 57-65. ↑

13. Id. at pp. 68-73. Section 230 was added to the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (title 5 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56), which would have imposed criminal liability on internet platforms if they did not take steps to prevent minors from obtaining “obscene or indecent” material online. The Supreme Court invalidated the CDA, except for Section 230, on the basis that it violated the First Amendment. (See Reno v. ACLU (1997) 521 U.S. 844, 874.) ↑

14. Id., § 230(c)(1). ↑

15. Id., § 230(c)(1) & (2). ↑

16. Id., § 230(e)(1) & (3). ↑

17. Kosseff, supra, fn. 13, at pp. 94-95; see, e.g., Doe v. MySpace Inc. (5th Cir. 2008) 528 F.3d 413, 421-422; Carfano v. Metrospalsh.com, Inc. (9th Cir. 2003) 339 F.3d 1119, 1125; Zeran v. America Online, Inc. (4th Cir. 1997) 129 F.3d 327, 333-334. ↑

18. Lemmon v. Snap, Inc., 995 F.3d at 1091-92, internal citations omitted. ↑

19. Bobby Allyn, Jury finds Meta and Google negligent in social media harms trial (March 25, 2026) NPR, https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5746125/meta-youtube-social-media-trial-verdict. ↑

20. Ibid. ↑

21. U.S. Const., 1st & 14th amends. ↑

22. Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2002) 535 U.S. 564, 573. ↑

23. Snyder v. Phelps (2011) 562 U.S. 443, 452. ↑

24. Cohen v. California (1971) 403 U.S. 15, 20. ↑

25. Virginia v. Black (2003) 538 U.S. 343, 359. ↑

26. R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992) 505 U.S. 377, 383. ↑

27. Ibid. ↑

28. Reno v. ACLU (1997) 521 U.S. 844, 870. ↑

29. Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989) 491 U.S. 781, 791.   ↑

30. FCC v. League of Women Voters (1984) 468 U.S. 364, 383.  ↑

31. Packingham v. North Carolina (2017) 582 U.S. 98, 105. ↑

32. McCullen v. Coakley (2014) 573 U.S. 464, 486 (McCullen). ↑

33. Id. at p. 478.  ↑

34. Id. at p. 479. ↑

35. Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015) 135 S.Ct. 2218, 2226 (Reed). ↑

36. United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group (2000) 529 U.S. 803, 813. ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2

Author:(Lowenthal and Patterson)

As Amended Ver:April 3, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Augments the liability large social media platforms may face if they violate existing law by causing an injury to a minor through failure to exercise ordinary care.

Major Provisions

1. Provides that a social media platform that, with respect to a minor, violates the existing statute governing liability for negligent harm caused to others and causes injury to the minor, is, in addition to any other liability owed, liable for statutory damages for the larger of the following:
   1. $5,000 per violation up to a maximum, per minor, of $1 million.
   2. Three times the amount of the minor's actual damages.
2. Provides that a waiver of the bill's provisions is void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy.
3. Applies only to social media platforms that generate more than $100 million per year in gross revenues.
4. Provides that all other duties, remedies, and obligations imposed under other provisions of law continue to apply.

COMMENTS

Social media harms to children. From 2010 to 2019, "rates of depression and anxiety—fairly stable during the 2000s—rose by more than 50% in many studies" and "[t]he suicide rate rose 48% for adolescents ages 10 to 19." This trend tracks "the years when adolescents in rich countries traded their flip phones for smartphones and moved much more of their social lives online—particularly onto social-media platforms designed for virality and addiction."^[1]

According to the Surgeon General:

[T]he current body of evidence indicates that while social media may have benefits for some children and adolescents, there are ample indicators that social media can also have a profound risk of harm to the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents. At this time, we do not yet have enough evidence to determine if social media is sufficiently safe for children and adolescents.^[2]

Social media companies have known for some time that social media use can be harmful to young users, and despite that knowledge, have continued to use algorithms and other design features to capture and hold their attention. Whistleblower Frances Haugen, for instance, revealed in 2021 that Facebook was well aware of the apparent connection between the teen mental health crisis and social media – including the severe harm to body image visited disproportionately on teen girls as a result of social comparison on these platforms – but nonetheless sought to recruit more children and expose them to addictive features that would lead to harmful content.^[3] Such revelations underscore the culpability of some social media companies in propagating features detrimental to the wellbeing of youth through intentional design choices that maximize engagement with profit-motivated online services.

Enhanced liability for negligence. State law provides that everyone, including individuals, businesses, and other entities, has a duty of "ordinary care and skill" in the "management" of their "property or person" – the long-established standard for negligence. This bill provides that a social media platform that violates this duty and harms a minor is additionally liable for either $5,000 per violation, with a per-minor maximum of $1,000,000, or three times the amount of the minor's actual damages.

Under existing law, social media platforms, like other entities, owe everyone a duty of care. The breach of this duty in a manner that causes harm can give rise to negligence lawsuits. This bill does not change those underlying principles. It simply increases the amount of damages that may be recovered if the injured party in such cases is a minor.

Constitutional considerations. Under existing law, some cases against social media platforms do not make it past the hurdles posed by Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Section 230 states, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."^[4] Case law suggests that social media platforms continue to have a duty of care to users and that negligence claims arising from a platforms' independent conduct, rather than their status as publishers of third party content, are compatible with Section 230.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, among other things, prohibits states from abridging freedom of speech. Because the bill does not regulate speech, it likely does not facially violate First Amendment. Nevertheless, as with negligence claims under existing law, there may be some cases in which the application of the bill to a particular situation unduly infringes on speech.

See the policy committee analyses for more discussion of these issues.

According to the Author

AB 2 amends Section 1714 of the Civil Code by adding statutory damages against platforms that are found in court to be liable under current law for negligently causing harm to children under the age of 18. Under the bill, if a company is proven to have failed to exercise its already established duty of operating with ordinary care, the company becomes financially liable for a set amount of $5,000 per violation, up to a maximum penalty of $1 million per child, or three times the amount of the child's actual damages, whichever is applicable. This financial liability aims to incentivize platforms who count their profits in the tens of billions to proactively safeguard children against potential harm by changing how they operate their platforms.

Arguments in Support

The Los Angeles County Office of Education, co-sponsors of the bill, write:

Social media platforms must be held accountable for the harm they cause, particularly to minors who are uniquely vulnerable to the harmful effects of online engagement. Research has repeatedly shown the detrimental impact of social media on young people's mental health, contributing to a range of issues, including increased instances of cyberbullying, mental health crises, and even acts of violence.

While social media platforms prioritize user engagement and growth, they often fail to adequately consider the safety and wellness of younger users. Given this imbalance, it is crucial that social media companies are required to uphold a standard of ordinary care in their management of content and interactions involving minors. This bill would establish much-needed accountability by holding social media platforms liable for civil penalties if they fail to exercise the necessary care to protect children on their platforms.

Arguments in Opposition

A coalition of industry opponents jointly write:

First, companies could adjust their policies and terms of service to exclude all users under the age of 18. This would be a tremendous and detrimental blow to teens' ability to access information and the open internet. As discussed below, this violates First Amendment principles and protections for teens. However, even if a platform stated in its terms of service that teens under 18 were not allowed on the platform and took steps to prevent their access, that may not be enough to avoid liability for a teen who accesses the site anyway and has a negative outcome.

Second, companies could also adjust their terms of service so that users under the age of 18 have a heavily sanitized version of the platform. This could include limiting which users teens can interact with (e.g. only users approved by parents), which features they have access to (no messaging or public posting), and even what content they can interact with or view (no political, news, or other "potentially harmful" content). This might reduce but would not prevent every instance of harm to teens given the nebulousness and subjectivity that is inherent in defining "harm".

This bill's implicit concern is harmful content. It is impossible for companies to identify and remove every potentially harmful piece of content because there's no clear consensus on what exactly constitutes harmful content, apart from clearly illicit content. Determining what is harmful is highly subjective and varies from person to person, making it impossible to make such judgments on behalf of millions of users. Faced with this impossible task and the liability imposed by this bill, some platforms may decide to aggressively over restrict content that could be considered harmful for teens. For instance, content promoting healthy eating could be restricted due to concerns it could lead to body image issues. Similarly, content about the climate crisis or foreign conflicts would need to be restricted as it could lead to depression, anxiety, and self-harm. Additionally, beneficial information like anti-drug or smoking cessation programs, mental health support, and gender identity resources could get overregulated because of the impossibility of deciding what is harmful to every user.

Furthermore, platforms would need to evaluate whether to eliminate fundamental features and functions of their platform, features that are the reason teens and users go to their platforms, due to the legal risk involved. For instance, since direct messaging features could potentially be misused for contacting and bullying other teens, such features would likely be removed.

Teens' use of these platforms would be overly policed and sanitized to such a degree that they would surely leave our sites in favor of others that don't meet AB 2's $100 million revenue threshold. Collectively, our organizations represent platforms that take their responsibility to their users incredibly seriously and have devoted millions of dollars to increasing the safety and enjoyment of their platforms. Teens will seek out the ability to interact online, whether it is on our platforms or on others, including ones that don't prioritize their safety and well-being.

FISCAL COMMENTS

As currently in print, this bill is keyed nonfiscal.

VOTES

ASM PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION: 9-0-6

YES: Dixon, Berman, Bryan, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Ortega, Patterson, Pellerin, Ward

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bauer-Kahan, DeMaio, Irwin, Macedo, Petrie-Norris, Wilson

ASM JUDICIARY: 9-0-3

YES: Kalra, Wicks, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Stefani, Zbur

ABS, ABST OR NV: Dixon, Sanchez, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: April 3, 2025

CONSULTANT: Josh Tosney / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200 FN: 0000226

1. Haidt, End the Phone-Based Childhood Now (March 13, 2024) The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/03/teen-childhood-smartphone-use-mental-health-effects/677722/. ↑

2. Surgeon General's Advisory, Social Media and Youth Mental Health (2023), p. 4, https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/reports-and-publications/youth-mental-health/social-media/index.html. ↑

3. Facebook Whistleblower Frances Haugen Testifies on Children & Social Media Use: Full Senate Hearing Transcript (Oct. 5, 2021), https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-testifies-on-children-social-media-use-full-senate-hearing-transcript. ↑

4. 47 U.S.C. Section 230(c)(1). ↑

Date of Hearing: April 8, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2

Author:(Lowenthal) – As Amended Ver:April 3, 2025

SUBJECT: Injuries to children: civil penalties

KEY ISSUE: SHOULD SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS BE LIABLE FOR SPECIFIED STATUTORY DAMAGES FOR BREACHING THEIR DUTY OF ORDINARY CARE AND SKILL TO A child by CAUSING INJURY TO the child?

SYNOPSIS

Social media has become a ubiquitous element of our society. Across platforms, social media is used as a tool to establish and maintain personal relationships; keep up to date with current events; engage in political organizing; and develop professional relationships. In the United States alone, approximately 70 percent of people use some form of social media. These demographics broken down by age demonstrate a significant percentage of younger users. This bill presents the latest approach to the issue of social media platforms’ responsibility to these younger users by imposing statutory damages on social media platforms who breach their duty of ordinary care and skill in relation to a minor. Like a number of its predecessors, including the author’s practically identical version from just last year, the current measure seeks to squarely situate social media platforms’ liability within existing parameters of tort law.

This bill is sponsored by Common Sense Media and supported by the California Charter Schools Association, the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy (CITED), the Children’s Advocacy Institute, the Consumer Federation of California, the Jewish Family and Children’s Services of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties, the Los Angeles County Office of Education, and the Organization for Social Media Safety. It is opposed by a coalition of tech-industry and advocates led TechNet, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). The bill was previously heard by the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection where it was approved on a vote of 9-0.

SUMMARY: Provides for statutory penalties available in a negligence cause of action brought on behalf of a child-user of a social media platform for harm caused by the platform. Specifically, this bill:

1. Makes findings and declarations regarding the duty of care imposed on everyone by Civil Code Section 1714 (a) and the risks to children on social media platforms.
2. Authorizes recovery of the larger of the following in a successful claim against a social media platform that alleges the platform violated Civil Code Section 1714 (a) by causing injury to a child:
   1. Five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation up to a maximum, per child, of one million dollars ($1,000,000);
   2. Three times the amount of the child’s actual damages;
3. Makes any waiver of 2) void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy.
4. Defines the following:
   1. “Child” means a minor under 18 years of age;
   2. “Social media platform” means a social media platform, as defined in Section 22675 of the Business and Professions Code, that generates more than one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) per year in gross revenues.
5. Establishes that the duties, remedies, and obligations imposed by the provisions of the bill are cumulative to the duties, remedies or obligations under other law and shall not be construed to relieve a social media platform from any duties, remedies, or obligations imposed under any other law.
6. Includes a severability clause.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. (47 U.S.C. Section 230(c)(1).)
2. Provides that every person is responsible, not only for the result of their willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by the person’s want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon themselves. (Civil Code Section 1714 (a).)
3. Defines “social media platform” as a public or semipublic internet-based service or application that has users in California and meets specified criteria. (Business and Professions Code Section 22945.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal.

COMMENTS: Social media has become a ubiquitous element of our society. Across platforms, social media is used as a tool to establish and maintain personal relationships; keep up to date with current events; engage in political organizing; and develop professional relationships. In the United States alone, approximately 70 percent of people use some form of social media. These demographics, when broken down by age, include a significant percentage of younger users. Approximately 84 percent of people between the ages of 18 and 29 years use at least one social media site, while the utilization rate for those between the ages of 50 to 84 years drops to 73 percent. Participation rates also vary between the social media platforms themselves. For example, while 65 percent of users between 18 and 29 years use Snapchat, only 42 percent have Twitter accounts. Perhaps particularly relevant to this bill, over 70 percent of 18 to 29 year-olds use Instagram, while that number drops to 48 percent for those between 30 to 49 years, and to 29 percent for those between the ages of 50 and 64. (Social Media Fact Sheet, (April 7, 2021) Pew Research Center available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/.) As usage of social media apps and websites has grown, so has the research on its consequences. The prevalence of social media in daily life impacts all demographics but has had, perhaps predictably, an outsized effect on younger populations.

Over the course of the last few years, the Legislature has evaluated a substantial number of bills attempting to hold social media platforms accountable for harms caused to minors who use their products. Bills have taken a variety of approaches, including attempting to make platforms liable for addicting children (AB 2408 (Cunningham, 2022)); requiring platforms that provide services to children to comply with certain safety requirements (AB 2273 (Wicks, 2022)); establishing reporting mechanisms to facilitate removal of child pornography on platforms (AB 1394 (Wicks, 2023)); authorizing individuals to bring claims against entities that distribute child pornography (SB 646 (Cortese, 2023)); and making platforms liable for features that cause harm to child users (SB 680 (Skinner, 2023)). Last year, the author shepherded a measure nearly identical to this bill through the Legislature (AB 3172), which died on the Senate Floor.

According to the author:

[AB 2] amends Section 1714 only by adding statutory damages against platforms that are found in court to be liable under current law for negligently causing harm to children under the age of 18. Under the bill, if a company is proven to have failed to exercise its already established duty of operating with ordinary care, the company becomes financially liable for a set amount of $5,000 per violation, up to a maximum penalty of $1 million per child, or three times the amount of the child’s actual damages, whichever is applicable. This financial liability aims to incentivize platforms who count their profits in the tens of billions to proactively safeguard children against potential harm by changing how they operate their platforms.

This bill presents the latest approach to the issue of quantifying social media platform’s responsibility to its young users. The bill imposes statutory damages on social media platforms who breach their duty of ordinary care and skill to a minor. Like a number of its predecessors, the current measure seeks to squarely situate social media platforms’ liability within existing parameters of tort law. The bill does so by cross-referencing Civil Code section 1714 (a), which provides that “[e]veryone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.”

The text of this bill is fairly straightforward. In a new section immediately after Civil Code Section 1714, the bill makes a social media platform that violates subdivision (a) of Section 1714 by causing injury to a child liable for statutory damages for the larger of the following:

1. Five thousand dollars per violation up to a per-child maximum of one million dollars;
2. Three times the amount of the child’s actual damages

The bill defines social media platform as a public or semipublic internet-based service or application that has users in California and meets specified criteria regarding their function, and generates more than one hundred million dollars per year.

Section 230 of the Federal Communications Decency Act. The federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) provides that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider,” and affords broad protection from civil liability for the good faith content moderation decisions of interactive computer services. (47 U.S.C. Sec. 230(c)(1) and (2).) Though Section 230 was originally passed in response to judicial inconsistency with respect to the liability of internet service providers under statutes pertaining to “publishers” of content created by others, it has since been interpreted to confer operators of social media platforms and other online services with broad immunity from liability for content posted by others.

Section 230 also indicates that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section,” but further provides that “[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.” (47 U.S.C. Sec. 230(e)(3).) The latter provision has generally been interpreted to expressly preempt any state law that has the effect of treating a social media or other online platform as the publisher of information posted by other users, including prescriptive requirements relating to content moderation. This is consistent with the law’s original intent, which was to ensure that internet platforms facilitating the sharing of content can do so without considerable risk of liability in the event that content is not meticulously policed.

Since the development of social media platforms, the extent of Section 230’s immunity shield has been heavily litigated. Questions have arisen regarding what elements of a user’s experience and therefore of a social media platform’s business model, benefit from Section 230, and which fall outside its scope. In Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com, LLC, Roommates.com was sued by a coalition of fair housing councils in California for allegedly violating the federal Fair Housing Act and state housing discrimination laws. (Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (2007).) The claim was based largely on the website’s search function which appeared to prefer certain profiles over others, seemingly on the basis of elements of the user’s identity, including their gender and sexual orientation, which were collected by Roommate.com through a mandatory questionnaire developed by the website. The District Court ruled in favor of Roommates.com, holding that the website was protected by Section 230. The councils subsequently appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which held that the website’s use of the information they required users to submit in order to utilize the website rendered Roommate.com outside the protection of Section 230. In its analysis, the court reasoned that a “website operator can be both a service provider and a content provider: If it passively displays content that is created entirely by third parties, then it is only a service provider with respect to that content. But as to content that it creates itself, or is ‘responsible, in whole or in part’ for creating or developing, the website is also a content provider.” (Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d at p. 1163 (2007).) With regard to Roommate.com’s own role in developing the users’ profiles, the court argued, “Roommate is ‘responsible’ at least ‘in part’ for each subscriber’s profile page, because ever such page is a collaborative effort between Roommate and the subscriber.” (Id. at p. 1167)

Two years later in Barnes v. Yahoo! Inc., the Ninth Circuit established a three-part test for determining whether a website benefits from the liability shield of Section 230. According to Barnes, Section 230 “only protects from liability (1) a provider or user of an interactive computer service (2) whom a plaintiff seeks to treat, under a state law cause of action, as a publisher or speaker (3) of information provided by another information content provider.” (Barnes v. Yahoo! Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, 1100 - 1101 (2009).)

In 2023, the Court issued a decision in a pair of cases addressing the same practice – Twitter v. Taamneh and Google v. Gonzalez. In November 2015, the Islamic State (ISIS) took responsibility for a series of coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris. Among the at least 130 people killed was 23-year-old American Nohemi Gonzalez. Shortly after Nohemi’s death, her father filed suit against Google, Twitter, and Facebook, arguing that the platforms were liable for aiding and abetting international terrorism by failing to appropriately respond to, or address, terrorist organizations’ use of their services. (They additionally argued that Google was not immune under Section 230 because their algorithm recommended ISIS videos to their users who ultimately conducted the acts of terrorism. The petitioners lost in both district court and on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and subsequently appealed to the United States Supreme Court. In June, 2023, the Court issued its decision in both matters, holding that “the failure to allege that the platforms here do more than transmit information by billions of people – most of whom use the platforms for interactions that once took place via mail, on the phone, or in public areas – is insufficient to state a claim that defendants knowingly gave substantial assistance and thereby aided and abetted ISIS’ acts. A contrary conclusion would effectively hold any sort of communications provider liable for any sort of wrongdoing merely for knowing that the wrongdoers were using its services and failing to stop them.” (Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, (2023) 143 S. Ct. 1206, 1213.) In issuing its ruling the Court never reached the question of whether Section 230 shielded platforms from liability, and instead only adjudicated the question of whether either platform was liable under the Antiterrorism Act as aiders and abettors. However, the same logic would seem to apply for both questions. While we cannot assume how the Court would rule on the matter, it seems likely that it would hold on a similar line of reasoning.

The extensive jurisprudence relating to liability of a social media platform for content distributed by a user on the site that may have led to injury appears to bolster the immunity conferred by Section 230. However, the question over whether choices made by the platform itself, is not quite so straightforward.

In Lemmon v. Snap, Snap (commonly known as Snapchat) attempted to argue that the CDA immunized them from liability in a negligent design lawsuit. (Lemmon v. Snap, Inc. (2021) 995 F.3d 1085.) In Lemmon, the plaintiff-parents’ children were tragically killed in a car accident. At the time of the accident, one of the young men, Landen Brown, opened Snapchat, and used a feature called the “Speed Filter,” which allowed users to superimpose the speed the user is going at the time of the image or video is taken. At the time of the accident, the boys were going as fast as 123 miles per hour. The parents claim against Snapchat focused, not on Landen’s video, but on the “Speed Filter,” and that Snapchat “allegedly knew or should have known that its users believed [that Snapchat will reward them for ‘recording a 100-MPH or faster [s]nap’” using the filter. (Id. at pp. 5- 6.)

In response, Snap argued that Section 230 shielded them from liability for the publication of third party materials, in this case referring to the image with the superimposed speed. (Id. at pp. 1090 – 1091.) The Ninth Circuit applied the three-pronged test set forth by Barnes v. Yahoo! Inc. (2009) 570 F.3d 1096 described above. (Id. at p. 1091) The court ultimately decided against Snap “because the Parents’ claim turns on Snap’s design of Snapchat.” (Id. at p. 1092.) While the merits of the parents’ claim in Lemmon were not ultimately adjudicated, nonetheless this case may indicate that basing liability on a platform’s own feature that they knew or reasonably should have known would be a substantial factor in causing harm to its users may preserve a law from being struck down under a Section 230 preemption argument.

The opposition argues that the bill violates Section 230, because it “effectively assumes that all features are harmful and imposes liability on a site for offering any of those features to children.” It is possible this bill presents an opportunity for plaintiffs to bring claims more akin to Lemmon than Twitter v. Taamneh, particularly considering that the language of the measure itself includes no reference to specific types of content. Ultimately, as with numerous measures introduced in the Legislature each year, whether or not this bill survives legal challenge is a question to be answered by the courts.

First Amendment Concerns. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” As applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and as interpreted by the courts, the First Amendment prohibits any law or policy, at any level of government, from abridging freedom of speech. Legislation seeking to regulate speech can generally be distinguished as either content-based or content-neutral. Content-based laws, or laws that target a particular type of speech, must meet a strict scrutiny standard and must therefore be the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government purpose in order to withstand legal challenge. Content neutral laws, on the other hand, or laws which serve a purpose unrelated to the speech itself, need only pass intermediate scrutiny. Under this standard, the law “need not be the least restrictive or least intrusive means of’ serving the government’s interests,” but “may not regulate expression in a manner that a substantial portion of the burden on speech does not serve to advance its goals.” It is also possible for a law that is facially neutral on the issue of speech may nonetheless violate the First Amendment if it creates a “chilling effect.”

Both organizations opposed to AB 2 argue that this bill runs afoul of the First Amendment. EFF contends:

Under AB 2, allowing online discussion of these higher-risk activities could lead to court-imposed penalties for the online information provider based on claims that discussing these activities online harmed a child.

That’s a big problem for every Californian’s ability to access information online. It’s also a First Amendment violation. Requiring platforms to apply the vague standard of ‘ordinary care and skill’ is subjective and depends on many factors. The state cannot enact a law that forces online services to steer clear of conversations about controversial or benign topics such as LGBTQ+ youth or high school football, the overwhelming majority of which will be protected speech. Relatedly, the state cannot set up a legal regime that allows anyone to seek to censor speech they disagree with or view as dangerous.

Nothing in the text of the bill imposes a requirement on social media platforms to avoid specific topics or content. Rather, EFF’s argument appears to be that that the economic risk of hosting content that may cause harm to a child is so significant that social media platforms will overcorrect and in so doing result in a silencing of particular conversations on the platform: “allowing online discussion of these higher-risk activities could lead to court-imposed penalties for the online information provider based on claims that discussing these activities online harmed a child.”

It is worthwhile to note that any legislation imposing requirements or potential liability on a social media platform risks a chilling effect. Whether or not the current measure, and the liability it proposes, would inevitably cause a chilling effect and thus violate the First Amendment depends in no small part in the success rate of claims brought under the bill’s provisions and thus the actual liability to platforms. As discussed throughout this analysis, platforms would only face actual liability if a plaintiff is able to bring a successful claim. If a claim is barred under either Section 230 or the First Amendment, they would be dismissed and no liability would attach.

While this analysis is free to speculate on whether the bill violates the First Amendment, much like the question of whether the bill is preempted by Section 230, the constitutional validity of the proposal is a question that would be answered by the courts.

The opposition contends that the standard of care proposed by AB 2 is unclear and will result in significant financial risk to platforms. TechNet submits:

It is entirely unclear what will constitute a violation of a platform’s ‘responsibility of ordinary care and skill’ in this context. Feasibly, any sort of negative impact on a child could be sufficient for a plaintiff to allege a breach of the platform’s responsibility of ordinary care and skill. Every platform feature, every interaction between users, and every post that a teen sees could be the basis for a lawsuit. Reasonable people, even parents in the same household, might disagree about what is harmful to a particular teen. AB 2 asks social media to decide what is harmful to every user and exercise ordinary care to prevent that harm. This ambiguity will be impossible for platforms to operationalize. […] This vagueness, combined with high per-violation statutory penalties […] that are decoupled from a plaintiff’s actual harm and potential lawsuits from outside of California, will invite a flood of frivolous litigation.

The sponsors contend that the bill does not create any new duty of care, but rather specifies damages for a violation of an existing duty of care owed to a child user (as opposed to an adult). Under this theory, a claim brought under this new provision that is not dismissed as barred by either Section 230 or the First Amendment would need to establish the same elements of any other negligence claim – duty, breach of duty, causation (encompassing cause in fact and proximate cause), and harm. Each of these claims are sure to be fact-specific. In practice it seems that many claims will likely face steep uphill climbs to success. However, it is not impossible that a court may find merit in a claim that hinges, not on any particular content, but on an element of the platform itself, more akin to the approach suggested in Lemmon.

The difficulty of bringing a negligence claim against the platforms is not raised to throw water on the concept proposed by this bill. Rather, it is raised to demonstrate that despite the potential appearance of significant economic liability for platforms, the actual risk is arguably quite minimal. It seems that platforms subject to liability under this measure, which is already limited to those generating more than $100,000,000 per year in gross revenue, are unlikely to face significant financial losses as a result of claims arising from the new statute. While it is possible that the potential of such a high reward could draw additional claims to be filed, it is far from a foregone conclusion that every claim will be successful.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill is sponsored by Common Sense Media. It is supported by the California Charter Schools Association, the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy (CITED), the Children’s Advocacy Institute, the Consumer Federation of California, the Jewish Family and Children’s Services of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties, the Los Angeles County Office of Education, and the Organization for Social Media Safety. In support of the bill the sponsors submit:

This bill establishes statutory damages under California’s existing negligence law for harms to minors related to social media that can be proven in court. That is the only change to California law that this bill makes. These financial penalties are needed and intended to motivate large social media companies to do what they currently refuse to do - ensure that the way they design and operate their platforms does not injure young users. There is mounting evidence, including from internal company communications, that social media platforms contribute to our youth mental health crisis and to other direct harms to kids and teens, including accessing fentanyl and other illegal drugs.

As the use of social media continues to climb among children and adolescents, so too does the urgency for legislative action. AB 2 offers a path to mitigate the risks faced by our youth in an increasingly connected world, ensuring that social media companies operate with the due care our children deserve.

Again, AB 2 makes no other change to California law other than to introduce specific financial liabilities for platforms whose products or designs are proven in court to result in harm to minors, incentivizing those companies to prioritize the safety of their younger users.

In light of the compelling association between social media use and injuries to young users, including effects on their mental well-being, we strongly urge your support for AB 2. Your action on this bill will be a significant step toward protecting our children and teens from the avoidable harms perpetuated through the negligence of social media companies.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: It is opposed by a coalition of tech-industry and advocates led TechNet, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). EFF submits:

We respectfully oppose A.B. 2, authored by Assemblymember Lowenthal, which would restrict all Californians’ access to online information. A.B. 2 would allow for plaintiffs suing online information providers to collect statutory damages of up to $1 million dollars based on the vaguest of claims that the service violated “its responsibility of ordinary care and skill to a child.” To be sure, children can be harmed online. A.B. 2, however, takes a deeply flawed and punitive approach to protecting children that will disproportionately harm everyone’s ability to speak and to access information online.

A.B. 2 picks up where Assemblymember Lowenthal’s A.B. 3172 left off. Where A.B. 3172 set forth breaches of “ordinary care” that are “knowingly and willfully” made, A.B. 2 returns to the lower negligence standard in existing section 1714(a) and simply refers to a social media company breaching its “responsibility of ordinary care and skill to a child.” The negligence standard is constitutionally deficient under the First Amendment, and what constitutes a social media company’s duty of care to a minor remains vague.

The heavy statutory damages imposed by A.B. 2 will result in broad censorship via scores of lawsuits that may claim any given content online is harmful to any child.

California should not enact a law that would be more harmful to children and will not be enforceable in any event. Further, should it become law, it will also be ineffective because federal law preempts Californian’s ability to hold online services civilly liable for harm caused by user-generated content.

[…]

The platforms that do not block or moderate spaces where certain topics are discussed will likely instead attempt to age-verify users, in order to shield minors from allegedly harmful conversations, and to serve as a defense in lawsuits. As EFF has explained in other contexts, mandatory online age verification is itself a bad idea.

As age verification requirements spread, Californians will be required to hand over much more private data simply to access online information. Mandatory online age verification invariably harms adults’ rights to speak anonymously or to access lawful speech online. Further, age verification that relies on government-issued identification harms the tens of millions of Americans, already vulnerable and often low-income, who do not have an ID. Age verification induced by A.B. 2 could cause these Californians to lose access to basic online information and services, such as the ability to seek housing and employment.

Californians should be concerned about the various ways children are harmed online, and should be exploring ways to prevent those harms. This includes enacting legislation that protects everyone’s privacy online, including children. Those proposals have the benefit of reducing many online harms and being constitutional. A.B. 2 unfortunately will not reduce online harms to children and will likely be struck down as unconstitutional. For all these reasons, we must oppose A.B. 2 and respectfully urge the committee’s “no” vote.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Charter Schools Association
California Initiative for Technology & Democracy, a Project of California Common CAUSE

California School Boards Association
Children’s Advocacy Institute

Common Sense
Consumer Federation of California
Jewish Family and Children's Services of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Organization for Social Media Safety

Opposition

California Chamber of Commerce
Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC)
Computer & Communications Industry Association
Electronic Frontier Foundation
TechNet-Technology Network

Analysis Prepared by: Manuela Boucher-de la Cadena / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

Date of Hearing: April 1, 2025

Fiscal: No

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2 (

Author:Lowenthal) – As Amended Ver:March 17, 2025

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

SUBJECT: Injuries to children: civil penalties

SYNOPSIS

State law provides that everyone, including individuals, businesses, and other entities, has a duty of “ordinary care and skill” in the “management” of their “property or person” – the long-established standard for negligence. This bill, which is identical to last year’s AB 3172 (Lowenthal) as it passed out of this Committee, provides that a large social media platform that violates this duty and harms a minor is additionally liable for the higher of $5,000 per violation, with a per-child maximum of $1,000,000, or three times the amount of the child’s actual damages.

The bill is sponsored by Common Sense Media and the Los Angeles County Office of Education, and supported by educational and children’s safety groups. Proponents contend that augmented financial liability will incentivize platforms, who count their profits in the tens of billions, to proactively safeguard children against potential harm by changing how they operate their platforms.

Opponents include TechNet, California Chamber of Commerce, Computer and Communications Industry Association, and Electronic Frontier Foundation. They argue, among other things, that the bill is largely preempted by federal law, will lead to a flood of unmeritorious litigation, and will restrict protected speech.

Clean-up amendments are proposed in Comment #6.

If passed by this Committee, this bill will next be heard by the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

THIS BILL:

1. Finds and declares:
   1. Subdivision (a) of Section 1714 of the Civil Code already makes every person and corporation, including social media platforms, financially responsible for an injury occasioned to another by their want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their property or person.
   2. Children are uniquely vulnerable on social media platforms.
   3. The biggest social media platforms invent and deploy features they know injure large numbers of children, including contributing to child deaths.
   4. The costs of these injuries are unfairly being paid by parents, schools, and taxpayers, not the platforms.
   5. The bill is necessary to ensure that the social media platforms that are knowingly causing the most severe injuries to the largest number of children receive heightened damages to prevent injury from occurring to children in the first place.
2. Provides that a social media platform that violates subdivision (a) of Section 1714 and breaches its responsibility of ordinary care and skill to a child is, in addition to any other remedy, liable for statutory damages for the larger of the following:
   1. $5,000 per violation up to a maximum, per child, of $1,000,000.
   2. Three times the amount of the child’s actual damages.
3. Makes waivers of the bill’s provisions void and unenforceable.
4. Defines:
   1. “Child” as a minor under 18 years of age.
   2. “Social media platform” as a social media platform, as defined in Section 22675 of the Business and Professions Code (see below), that generates more than $100,000,000 per year in gross revenues.
5. States that the duties, remedies, and obligations imposed by the bill are cumulative to the duties, remedies, or obligations imposed under other laws and shall not be construed to relieve a social media platform from any duties, remedies, or obligations imposed under any other law.
6. Contains a severability clause and clarifies that its provisions do not apply to cases pending before January 1, 2026.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Prohibits, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, treating a provider or user of an interactive computer service as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).)
2. Defines “social media platform” as a public or semipublic internet-based service or application that has users in California and that meets both of the following criteria:
   1. A substantial function of the service or application is to connect users in order to allow them to interact socially with each other within the service or application. (A service or application that provides email or direct messaging services does not meet this criterion based solely on that function.)
   2. The service or application allows users to do all of the following:
      1. Construct a public or semipublic profile for purposes of signing into and using the service or application.
   3. Populate a list of other users with whom an individual shares a social connection within the system.
   4. Create or post content viewable by other users, including, but not limited to, on message boards, in chat rooms, or through a landing page or main feed that presents the user with content generated by other users. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 22675(f).)
3. Provides that everyone is responsible, not only for the result of their willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned by their want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon themselves. (Civ. Code § 1714(a).)

COMMENTS:

1) Author’s statement. According to the author:

AB 2 amends Section 1714 of the Civil Code by adding statutory damages against platforms that are found in court to be liable under current law for negligently causing harm to children under the age of 18. Under the bill, if a company is proven to have failed to exercise its already established duty of operating with ordinary care, the company becomes financially liable for a set amount of $5,000 per violation, up to a maximum penalty of $1 million per child, or three times the amount of the child’s actual damages, whichever is applicable. This financial liability aims to incentivize platforms who count their profits in the tens of billions to proactively safeguard children against potential harm by changing how they operate their platforms.

2) Social media’s impact on children. In May 2023, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued an advisory warning of the potential mental health impacts of social media on young people.^[1] The advisory calls for more research and concludes that while “the current body of evidence indicates that while social media may have benefits for some children and adolescents, there are ample indicators that social media can also have a profound risk of harm to the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents.”^[2]

According to the Surgeon General, adolescents, in a critical formative period of brain development, are especially vulnerable to potential mental health impacts of social media.^[3] While noting that several complex factors shape social media’s influence on children and adolescents, the Surgeon General points to two primary risk factors: 1) harmful content, and 2) excessive and problematic use.

Harmful content. According to the Surgeon General, “extreme, inappropriate, and harmful content continues to be easily and widely accessible by children and adolescents” and is “spread through direct pushes, unwanted content exchanges, and algorithmic designs.”^[4] Such content includes:

• Extreme content such as live depictions of self-harm acts, like asphyxiation or cutting, “which can normalize such behaviors, including through the formation of suicide pacts and posing of self-harm models for others to follow.”^[5]
• Bullying and harassment: roughly two-thirds of adolescents are “often” or “sometimes” exposed to hate-based content, with nearly 75% of adolescents stating that social media sites do a fair to poor job of addressing online harassment and bullying.^[6]
• Predatory behaviors, including financial or sexual exploitation of children and adolescents; nearly 6-in-10 adolescent girls surveyed had received unwanted advances from strangers on social media platforms.^[7]

Leaked internal platform studies indicate that youth exposure to unwanted, disturbing, graphic, or sexual content is common and facilitated by platform design.^[8] According to documents obtained by the Wall Street Journal, one in eight users under the age of 16 experienced unwanted sexual advances on Instagram, facilitated by lax privacy settings.^[9]

Additionally, the advisory cites a synthesis of 20 studies demonstrating that many users, especially adolescent girls, experience envy and social comparison, leading to body dissatisfaction, disordered eating behaviors, and low self-esteem. “When asked about the impact of social media on their body image, nearly half (46%) of adolescents aged 13–17 said social media makes them feel worse, 40% said it makes them feel neither better nor worse, and only 14% said it makes them feel better.”^[10] Internal studies by platforms also indicate similar patterns of social comparison, with negative effects on wellbeing.^[11] In an internal Meta study, younger and female users reported much greater rates of feeling “worse about yourself because of other peoples’ posts on Instagram,” with 27.4% of 13-15 year old females reporting this experience over a 7-day period, compared to 14.6% of males in the same age group.^[12]

Excessive and problematic use. The advisory cites studies showing that on a typical weekday, nearly one in three adolescents report using screens – most commonly social media – until midnight or later.^[13] One third or more of girls aged 11-15 feel “addicted” to certain platforms. Excessive use correlates with attention problems, feelings of exclusion, and sleep problems.^[14] Poor sleep, in turn, is linked with neurological development issues, depression, and suicidality.^[15] These findings are borne out by the observations of platforms themselves: internal Meta research detailed in a recent lawsuit concluded that “when social media use displaces sleep in adolescents, it is negatively correlated to indicators of mental health.”^[16]

Excessive use is driven in part by systems that are optimized to maximize user engagement through design features, such as recommendation algorithms, likes, push notifications, auto-play, and endless scroll.^[17] According to a former social media company executive’s statements, such features were designed intentionally to increase time spent through features that “give you a little dopamine hit every once in awhile.”^[18] These features “can trigger pathways comparable to addiction.”^[19] Young people with still-developing pre-frontal cortexes who crave social reward and lack inhibition are especially susceptible.^[20]

3) Negligence. Civil Code section 1714(a) provides: “Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.” To establish negligence, “the plaintiff must show that the defendant had a duty to use due care, that he breached that duty, and that the breach was the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.”^[21] “A duty exists only if ‘the plaintiff's interests are entitled to legal protection against the defendant’s conduct.’”^[22] “‘[A]s a general matter, there is no duty to act to protect others from the conduct of third parties.’”^[23] However, “[i]n a case involving harm caused by a third party, a person may have an affirmative duty to protect the victim of another’s harm if that person is in what the law calls a ‘special relationship’ with either the victim or the person who created the harm.”^[24] A special relationship “‘gives the victim a right to expect’ protection from the defendant, while a special relationship between the defendant and the dangerous third party is one that ‘entails an ability to control [the third party’s] conduct.’”^[25]

4) This bill augments liability for social media platforms that negligently harm children. This bill provides that a social media platform that violates Section 1714(a) and breaches its responsibility of ordinary care and skill to a child – defined as a minor under 18 years of age – is, in addition to any other remedy, liable for statutory damages for the larger of:

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

A social media platform for these purposes is one that meets an existing statutory definition and generates more than $100,000,000 per year in gross revenues. The bill would also provide that any waivers of the bill’s provisions are void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy.

The bill is identical to last year’s AB 3172 as it passed this Committee, by an 11-0 vote. The bill was amended in Senate Appropriations to apply only to knowing and willful failure to exercise ordinary care to a child, cap statutory damages at $250,000, and require no less than 51% of the penalties to go to a state fund dedicated to raising awareness among adolescents on safe social media use. The bill was moved to the Senate’s inactive file.

5) Constitutional considerations. Opponents of the bill raise concerns relating to freedom of speech and federal preemption.

First Amendment. The United States and California Constitutions prohibit abridging, among other fundamental rights, freedom of speech.^[26] “The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment . . . can serve as a defense in state tort suits.”^[27] “[T]he basic principles of freedom of speech and the press, like the First Amendment’s command, do not vary when a new and different medium for communication appears.”^[28] Additionally, “the creation and dissemination of information are speech . . . .”^[29] Dissemination of speech is different from “expressive conduct,” which is conduct that has its own expressive purpose and may be entitled to First Amendment protection.^[30]

Laws that are not content specific are generally subject to “intermediate scrutiny,” which requires that the law “be ‘narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest.’”^[31] In other words, the law “‘need not be the least restrictive or least intrusive means of’ serving the government’s interests,” but “‘may not regulate expression in such a manner that a substantial portion of the burden on speech does not serve to advance its goals.’”^[32] This bill does not regulate expression; it augments liability for large platforms that violate an existing duty and harm children.

Federal preemption. Section 230(c)(1) of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 shields online platforms from liability for third-party content: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”^[33] This provision has been hailed as the law that created the modern internet, fostering free expression online and allowing an array of innovative services and spaces to flourish, from search engines to social media.^[34] It has also come with a destructive side, absolving platforms of responsibility for virtually all third-party harms arising from the use of their services – “a protection not available to print material or television broadcasts.”^[35]

Section 230 was intended to promote investment in online companies and encourage “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking and screening of offensive material” ^[36] without fear of liability for defamation.^[37] Courts soon adopted an expansive interpretation – a key early decision construed “publisher” immunity as encompassing “traditional editorial functions” such as deciding whether to publish, remove, or even alter content.^[38] Consequently, the plaintiff, a victim of online defamation by an anonymous user, had no recourse against the platform despite its failure to timely remove the content, which would have resulted in liability in the offline world. Following this logic, courts have extended Section 230 well beyond the defamation context, routinely concluding that online intermediaries are not liable for harms related to third-party illicit content.^[39] “The common thread weaving through these cases is that the courts have sapped §230’s Good Samaritan concept of its meaning.”^[40]

This sweeping grant of immunity has been the subject of widespread criticism and calls for reform.^[41] Senators Lindsey Graham and Dick Durbin are planning to introduce a bill that would sunset Section 230.^[42] Justice Clarence Thomas has called for the Supreme Court to review the scope of Section 230.^[43] Ninth Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson recently stated that courts have “stretch[ed] the statute’s plain meaning beyond recognition,” leading to “perverse effects.”^[44] The Ninth Circuit “should revisit our precedent,” he urged, particularly in light of “artificial intelligence raising the specter of lawless and limitless protections.”^[45]

Courts have emphasized, however, that Section 230 immunity is not limitless.^[46] Section 230 is not “an all-purpose get-out-of-jail-free card”^[47] that “create[s] a lawless no-man’s-land on the internet.’”^[48] The Ninth Circuit has “consistently eschewed an expansive reading of the statute that would render unlawful conduct ‘magically . . . lawful when [conducted] online,’ and therefore ‘giv[ing] online businesses an unfair advantage over their real-world counterparts.’”^[49]

Under Ninth Circuit precedent, Section 230(c)(1) immunity exists for “(1) a provider or user of an interactive computer service (2) whom a plaintiff seeks to treat, under a state law cause of action, as a publisher or speaker (3) of information provided by another information content provider.”^[50] With respect to the third prong, Section 230 protection extends only to claims that “derive[] from the defendant’s status or conduct as a publisher or speaker.”^[51] If, instead, the claim “springs from something separate from the defendant’s status as a publisher, such as from . . . obligations the defendant has in a different capacity,” Section 230 immunity does not apply.^[52] Examples of such cases involving negligence include:

• A networking website owner’s negligent failure to warn a woman who was raped by two users of the website who posed as talent scouts to lure her to a fake audition, where it was alleged that an outside source had informed the owner about the predatory scheme.^[53]
• Snap’s allegedly defectively-designed app, which promoted content that encouraged two teen boys who died in a high-speed car accident to drive at dangerous speeds.^[54]

While these cases are highly fact-specific and there are precedents to the contrary,^[55] these cases show that negligence claims against social media platforms can survive a Section 230 defense.

6) Amendments. The author has agreed to the following technical clean-up amendments:

(a) A social media platform that violates subdivision (a) of Section 1714 and breaches its responsibility of ordinary care and skill by causing injury to a child shall, in addition to any other remedy, be liable for statutory damages for the larger of the following:

[. . .]

(b) Any waiver of this subdivision section shall be void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy.

[. . . ]

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Los Angeles County Office of Education, co-sponsors of the bill, write:

Social media platforms must be held accountable for the harm they cause, particularly to minors who are uniquely vulnerable to the harmful effects of online engagement. Research has repeatedly shown the detrimental impact of social media on young people’s mental health, contributing to a range of issues, including increased instances of cyberbullying, mental health crises, and even acts of violence.

While social media platforms prioritize user engagement and growth, they often fail to adequately consider the safety and wellness of younger users. Given this imbalance, it is crucial that social media companies are required to uphold a standard of ordinary care in their management of content and interactions involving minors. This bill would establish much-needed accountability by holding social media platforms liable for civil penalties if they fail to exercise the necessary care to protect children on their platforms.

Just as institutions and businesses serving youth are held accountable for ensuring the safety and well-being of their patrons, social media companies should be held to the same standard. AB 2 represents an important step toward protecting the mental and physical health of children and ensuring that platforms act responsibly toward the younger population that depends on them.

Children’s Advocacy Institute writes:

Making platforms pay more if a court finds they have negligently hurt children is not in any way, shape, or form burdensome or unfair to stubbornly bad acting platforms. As the former, long-time Chair of the Orange County Republican Party, Fred Whitaker, wrote in supporting a similar bill before this Committee last year:

Thus, all the opposition to this bill needs to do to avoid any prospect of liability under the bill is simply exercise reasonable care not to harm children. Surely, a company like Meta which in 2021 earned an incredible $100 billion profit (General Motors which we used to think of as a big company earned 10 billion) can afford to exercise such care. If it doesn’t, it should pay for the harm it causes.

That’s the American way.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: In opposition to the bill, TechNet, California Chamber of Commerce, and Computer and Communications Industry Association jointly write:

To the extent this bill provides an incentive for platforms to change their policies and features, the extreme risk of liability will likely result in companies severely limiting or completely eliminating online spaces for teens.

Litigation leads to uneven and inconsistent outcomes, with different companies choosing to limit the immense exposure this bill will create in different ways. There are two main ways platforms could respond to the vague requirements and extreme liability in this bill, neither of which are good outcomes for teens.

First, companies could adjust their policies and terms of service to exclude all users under the age of 18. This would be a tremendous and detrimental blow to teens’ ability to access information and the open internet. As discussed below, this violates First Amendment principles and protections for teens. However, even if a platform stated in its terms of service that teens under 18 were not allowed on the platform and took steps to prevent their access, that may not be enough to avoid liability for a teen who accesses the site anyway and has a negative outcome.

Second, companies could also adjust their terms of service so that users under the age of 18 have a heavily sanitized version of the platform. This could include limiting which users teens can interact with (e.g. only users approved by parents), which features they have access to (no messaging or public posting), and even what content they can interact with or view (no political, news, or other “potentially harmful” content). This might reduce but would not prevent every instance of harm to teens given the nebulousness and subjectivity that is inherent in defining “harm”.

This bill’s implicit concern is harmful content. It is impossible for companies to identify and remove every potentially harmful piece of content because there’s no clear consensus on what exactly constitutes harmful content, apart from clearly illicit content. Determining what is harmful is highly subjective and varies from person to person, making it impossible to make such judgments on behalf of millions of users. Faced with this impossible task and the liability imposed by this bill, some platforms may decide to aggressively over restrict content that could be considered harmful for teens. For instance, content promoting healthy eating could be restricted due to concerns it could lead to body image issues. Similarly, content about the climate crisis or foreign conflicts would need to be restricted as it could lead to depression, anxiety, and self-harm. Additionally, beneficial information like anti-drug or smoking cessation programs, mental health support, and gender identity resources could get overregulated because of the impossibility of deciding what is harmful to every user.

Furthermore, platforms would need to evaluate whether to eliminate fundamental features and functions of their platform, features that are the reason teens and users go to their platforms, due to the legal risk involved. For instance, since direct messaging features could potentially be misused for contacting and bullying other teens, such features would likely be removed.

Teens’ use of these platforms would be overly policed and sanitized to such a degree that they would surely leave our sites in favor of others that don’t meet AB 2’s $100 million revenue threshold. Collectively, our organizations represent platforms that take their responsibility to their users incredibly seriously and have devoted millions of dollars to increasing the safety and enjoyment of their platforms. Teens will seek out the ability to interact online, whether it is on our platforms or on others, including ones that don’t prioritize their safety and well-being.

Electronic Frontier Foundation adds:

The heavy statutory damages imposed by A.B. 2 will result in broad censorship via scores of lawsuits that may claim any given content online is harmful to any child. California should not enact a law that would be more harmful to children and will not be enforceable in any event. Further, should it become law, it will also be ineffective because federal law preempts Californian’s ability to hold online services civilly liable for harm caused by user-generated content.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Common Sense Media

Los Angeles County Office of Education (Sponsor)

California Charter Schools Association
Childrens Advocacy Institute
Jewish Family and Children's Services of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties
Organization for Social Media Safety

Opposition

CalChamber

Computer & Communications Industry Association

Electronic Frontier Foundation
Technet-technology Network

Analysis Prepared by: Josh Tosney / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200

1. “Social Media and Youth Mental Health: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory” (May 23, 2023) p. 6 (emphasis added), https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/sg-youth-mental-health-social-media-advisory.pdf. (“Surgeon General’s Advisory”) ↑

2. Id. at p. 4. ↑

3. “Extractive Technology is Damaging our Attention and Mental Health,” Center for Humane Technology, https://www.humanetech.com/attention-mental-health. ↑

4. Surgeon General’s Advisory, supra, at p. 8. ↑

5. Ibid. ↑

6. Alhajji et al., “Cyberbullying, Mental Health, and Violence in Adolescents and Associations With Sex and Race: Data From the 2015 Youth Risk Behavior Survey” Global pediatric health (2019), https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2333794X19868887; Vogels, “Teens and Cyberbullying,” Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech (2022), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/12/15/teens-and-cyberbullying-2022/. ↑

7. Nesi, et al. “Teens and mental health: How girls really feel about social media” Common Sense Media (2023), https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/teens-and-mental-health-how-girls-really-feel-about-social-media. ↑

8. “Minnesota Attorney General’s Report on Emerging Technology and Its Effects on Youth Well-Being” (Feb. 2025), p. 10-11. https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Reports/EmergingTechnology_2025.pdf. (“Minnesota Attorney General’s Report”) ↑

9. Jeff Horwitz, “His Job Was to Make Instagram Safe for Teens. His 14-Year-Old Showed Him What the App Was Really Like” The Wall Street Journal (Nov. 2, 2023), https://www.wsj.com/tech/instagram-facebook-teens-harassment-safety-5d991be1?mod=hp_featst_pos3. ↑

10. Bickham et al., “Adolescent Media Use: Attitudes, Effects, and Online Experiences” Boston Children’s Hospital Digital Wellness Lab (2022), https://digitalwellnesslab.org/wpcontent/uploads/Pulse-Survey_Adolescent-Attitudes-Effectsand-Experiences.pdf . ↑

11. Minnesota Attorney General’s Report, supra, p. 11-12. ↑

12. Arizona et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-05448, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2023), https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nmd.496039/gov.uscourts.nmd.496039.36.2.pdf. ↑

13. Rideout, V., & Robb, M. B. “Social media, social life: Teens reveal their experiences” Common Sense Media (2018), https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/report/2018-social-mediasocial-life-executive-summary-web.pdf. ↑

14. Surgeon General’s Advisory, supra, at p. 10. ↑

15. Ibid. ↑

16. Arizona et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., supra. ↑

17. Burhan & Moradzadeh, “Neurotransmitter Dopamine and its Role in the Development of Social Media Addiction” 11 Journal of Neurology & Neurophysiology 507 (2020), https://www.iomcworld.org/open-access/neurotransmitter-dopamine-da-and-its-role-in-the-development-of-social-mediaaddiction.pdf. ↑

18. Alex Hern, ‘Never get high on your own supply’ – why social media bosses don’t use social media,” The Guardian (Jan. 23, 2018), https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jan/23/never-get-high-on-your-own-supply-why-social-media-bosses-dont-use-social-media. ↑

19. Surgeon General’s Advisory, supra, at p. 9. ↑

20. Ibid. ↑

21. Nally v. Grace Community Church (1988) 47 Cal.3d 278, 292. ↑

22. Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2021) 11 Cal.5th 204, 213, internal quotes omitted. ↑

23. Id. at p. 214. ↑

24. Id. at p. 215. ↑

25. Id. at p. 216. ↑

26. U.S. Const., 1st and 14th Amends; Cal. Const. art. I, § 2. ↑

27. Snyder v. Phelps (2011) 562 U.S. 443, 451. ↑

28. Joseph Burstyn v. Wilson (1952) 343 U.S. 495, 503. ↑

29. Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (2011) 564 U.S. 552, 570. ↑

30. Ibid. ↑

31. Packingham v. North Carolina (2017) 582 U.S. 98, 98. ↑

32. McCullen v. Coakley (2014) 573 U.S. 464, 486, emphasis added. ↑

33. 42 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). Section 230 also (1) provides a safe harbor for good faith content moderation, (2) preempts contrary state laws, and (3) enumerates exemptions for enforcement of federal criminal statutes, intellectual property laws, communications privacy laws, and sex trafficking. ↑

34. See e.g., Kosseff, The Twenty-Six Words that Created the Internet (2019). ↑

35. Quinta Jurecic, “The politics of Section 230 reform: Learning from FOSTA’s mistakes” Brookings (Mar. 1, 2022), https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-politics-of-section-230-reform-learning-from-fostas-mistakes. ↑

36. § 230(c). ↑

37. Fair Hous. Council v. Roommates.com, LLC (9th Cir. 2008) 521 F.3d 1157, 1163. ↑

38. Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc (4th Cir. 1997) 129 F.3d 327. ↑

39. Michael Rustad & Thomas Koenig, “The Case for a CDA Section 230 Notice-and-Takedown Duty” (2023) 23 Nev.L.J. 533, 561-574. ↑

40. Danielle Keats Citron, “How to Fix Section 230” (2023) 103 B.U.L. Rev. 713, 727. ↑

41. E.g., John Lucas, “AG Moody Joins with Other Attorneys General to Urge Congress to Stop Protecting Illegal Activity on the Net,” Capitolist (May 23, 2019), https://thecapitolist.com/ag-moody-joins-with-other-attorneys-general-to-urge-congress-to-stop-protecting-illegal-activity-on-the-net. ↑

42. Lauren Feiner, “Lawmakers are tyring to repeal section 230 again” The Verge (Mar. 21, 2025), https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/lawmakers-are-trying-to-repeal-section-230-again/ar-AA1BptAI?ocid=BingNewsVerp. ↑

43. Doe ex rel. Roe v. Snap, Inc. (2024) 144 S. Ct. 2493 (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). ↑

44. Calise v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (9th Cir. 2024) 103 F.4th 732, 747 (Nelson, J. concurring) (Calise). ↑

45. Ibid. ↑

46. Calise, supra, 103 F.4th at p. 739, citing cases. ↑

47. Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc. (9th Cir. 2016) 824 F.3d 846, 853. ↑

48. HomeAway.com v. City of Santa Monica (9th Cir. 2018) 918 F.3d 676, 683. ↑

49. Ibid. ↑

50. Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc. (9th Cir. 2009) 570 F.3d 1096, 1109. ↑

51. Id. at p. 1102. ↑

52. Calise, supra, 103 F.4th at p. 742. ↑

53. Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc., supra, 824 F.3d at pp. 852-853. ↑

54. Lemmon v. Snap, Inc. (9th Cir. 2021) 995 F.3d 1085, 1092. ↑

55. Doe v. MySpace, Inc. (5th Cir. 2008) 528 F.3d 413. ↑