California Assembly Bill 1709 would violate the First Amendment and undermine parental choice

A version of the following public comment was submitted to the California Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection on April 10, 2026.

While the goal of Assembly Bill 1709 (AB 1709) to protect children online is well-intentioned, its categorical ban on users under 16 and the associated compliance burdens would violate the First Amendment and create several unintended consequences that undermine parental choice and family autonomy.

AB 1709 would impose a broad restriction on minors' access to social media, which means banning access to constitutionally protected online speech. This is a direct violation of the First Amendment. Social media is a forum for expression, association, education, news, political participation, and community engagement. A law that would broadly exclude an entire class of minors from those spaces, regardless of whether their parents choose to allow them online, is an unconstitutional burden on protected speech.

AB 1709 would also displace parental judgment with a one-size-fits-all law. Parents are better positioned to decide whether, when, and how their children should use online platforms. A blanket statutory ban would remove that discretion and replace family choice with state compulsion, even though many families already rely on tools that allow them to supervise and limit use in more tailored ways.

Rather than imposing a sweeping prohibition that violates the First Amendment and undermines parental choice, California should encourage existing safety tools, privacy-preserving age assurance where needed, and robust parental controls that allow families to make their own decisions about their children's online activity.