California, the latest state to mandate social media warnings, is facing a federal lawsuit before its law has even taken effect. NetChoice, a trade group representing some of the world's largest social media companies, filed suit on Thursday asking a judge to block Assembly Bill 56 from going into force on Jan. 1, 2027.
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, argues that the law amounts to compelled speech that violates the First Amendment, according to NetChoice. “This is compelled speech, a direct violation of the First Amendment,” the group said in its filing. NetChoice, based in Washington, D.C., counts Meta, Google and TikTok among its members and has sued California several times over past efforts to regulate how young people use the internet, including a 2022 bill that sought stricter privacy settings on platforms likely used by children.
What AB 56 Actually Requires
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 56 into law on Oct. 13, 2025, after it was authored by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan and backed by Attorney General Rob Bonta as a key supporter, per the Sacramento Bee. The law will require covered platforms to display a black-box-style warning every day a user who is 17 or younger logs on, once it takes effect in 2027. The warning must state that social media may benefit some young users but is associated with significant mental-health harms and has not been proven safe for young users.
The mandate comes in two tiers of escalating intensity. An initial warning must run for at least 10 seconds continuously, covering 25% of the screen, and can be dismissed through a conspicuous X icon, according to Hunton Andrews Kurth. After three hours of cumulative use in a single day, and every additional hour after that, platforms must show a longer warning lasting at least 30 seconds and covering 75% of the screen that cannot be dismissed at all. Per the law firm's analysis, that second warning applies to anyone the platform hasn't verified is over 17. The California Legislative Information site's bill text specifies that the extended warning must display clearly and continuously, with no option to click through it. The law is enforced by the California attorney general and does not create a private right of action, according to Orrick.
NetChoice's Core Argument
NetChoice contends that companies are already taking steps to help children use platforms responsibly, and suggests California could instead require schools to provide social media digital-literacy training rather than mandate warning labels on private services. The group's lawsuit states that California is compelling regulated services to speak the state's message rather than letting them communicate on their own terms, and argues that the measure is unconstitutional. NetChoice has filed similar lawsuits against several other states over efforts to regulate youth social media use.
Bauer-Kahan pushed back on that framing, saying the bill provides evidence-based information for families and does not ban social media, censor content or demand unnecessary compelled speech, the Sacramento Bee reported. Bonta's office said it will respond as appropriate in court, according to the same report.
A Broader Fight Playing Out Nationwide
AB 56 is part of a larger national push to confront social media's potential health risks, a movement that gained momentum after former U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called for a warning label on social media platforms in 2024, as Politico has reported. Recent research cited by Politico has linked heavy platform use to increased anxiety, body dysmorphia and sleep interruption in children. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has said it cannot conclude that social media is sufficiently safe for children and adolescents and has outlined steps to mitigate potential harm.
California isn't alone in trying this approach, and the early legal track record elsewhere is mixed. A federal court paused a Colorado law — which would have required warnings every 30 minutes once a minor spent an hour on a platform in a day, or used it overnight between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. — after finding it likely violates the First Amendment, according to Colorado Public Radio. NetChoice's own filing describes that Colorado law as having been blocked by a federal court.
California has already seen a related fight play out over its Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, separate legislation the Legislature and Newsom approved to require platforms serving users under 16 to exclude algorithm-driven personalized feeds, autoplaying videos and other features. In March, the Ninth Circuit partially affirmed and partially vacated a preliminary injunction in NetChoice's challenge to that law, ruling the group was unlikely to succeed in facial challenges to the Act's coverage definition and age-estimation requirement while upholding an injunction against its data-use and dark-pattern restrictions on vagueness grounds, according to the opinion published via Justia.
