California blocks addictive feeds for under-16s, changing teen reach

California’s new child-safety rules take a different route from a social-media ban. Under AB 1709, platforms can still let users under 16 keep accounts, but those users cannot be given the addictive features that make modern feeds so effective at capturing attention, including autoplay and algorithmic feeds shaped by user history and profile data.

For marketers, that distinction matters. The California governor’s announcement also says the broader child-safety package strengthens protections against targeted advertising to children. Gov. Gavin Newsom said, “Our children’s safety deserves to be at the center of every conversation about technology.” The immediate compliance burden sits with platforms, but the downstream effect reaches brands, creators, agencies, and anyone relying on personalized feeds to reach younger audiences.

Key Takeaways

• California is restricting addictive social-media features for users under 16 rather than banning their accounts outright.
• Brands and creators that depend on algorithmic discovery may lose a major distribution path to younger audiences.
• Marketers should audit teen reach, creator audience data, targeting practices, and alternative channels before the rules take effect.

Table of contents

Jump to each section:

• What AB 1709 actually changes
• Why this is a marketing story
• Who needs to rethink teen reach
• APAC is already splitting into different models
• What marketers should do before 2027

What AB 1709 actually changes

The enrolled AB 1709 text defines addictive features to include an addictive feed and autoplay, while allowing regulators to define additional features later. An addictive feed is broadly based on media recommended, selected, or prioritized using information associated with a user or their device, with exceptions for things such as direct communications, explicit user requests, and certain search activity.

Crucially, the final bill says a covered platform may permit a user under 16 to create or maintain an account if that user is not provided any addictive feature. That makes California’s approach materially different from an outright minimum-age account rule. Platforms also have to verify age and implement reasonable measures to keep restricted features away from users below the threshold.

Up to US$50,000 per affected minor is the civil penalty for a knowing violation under AB 1709, while negligent violations can carry penalties of up to US$25,000 per affected minor, according to the enrolled bill text.

Influencer marketing ethics: the decisions brands need to make before creators post

A practical framework for disclosure, truthful claims, creator independence, audience risk, synthetic content, and campaign escalation.

Why this is a marketing story

Algorithmic feeds are not just product features. They are distribution infrastructure for organic brand posts, creator content, paid amplification, and the discovery loops that turn one piece of content into repeated exposure. If a teen audience receives a less personalized, less autoplay-driven version of a platform, marketers cannot assume the same content will travel in the same way.

That could change campaign planning even when brands never target minors intentionally. A beauty creator, gaming channel, snack brand, entertainment account, or education service can have a mixed-age audience. If part of that audience is placed into a different feed experience, aggregate reach, completion rates, frequency, and conversion paths may shift even though the campaign itself has not changed.

Who needs to rethink teen reach

The most obvious exposure sits with categories that naturally attract younger audiences, including gaming, beauty, food and snacks, entertainment, education, and youth-focused retail. Creators whose audiences skew young also need to pay closer attention to who actually sees their work and how much distribution comes from recommendation systems rather than direct follows, search, or subscriptions.

Agencies should treat this as a planning and measurement issue, not merely a platform-compliance footnote. Creator contracts may need clearer audience-age disclosures where those data are available, while campaign reports should avoid assuming that historical reach benchmarks will remain stable once platform experiences diverge by age. Marketers should also review any practices that could fall within the broader package’s child-targeted advertising restrictions with legal counsel.

APAC is already splitting into different models

California is entering a regulatory landscape that already looks fragmented. Australia’s social media age restrictions take a more account-focused approach: age-restricted platforms are not allowed to let Australians under 16 have accounts. California instead preserves the possibility of an account while turning off specific engagement mechanics.

Indonesia adds another model. PP No. 17 of 2025, known as PP TUNAS, governs electronic-system providers in relation to child protection and defines children as people under 18. Its implementing framework covers risk classification, provider obligations, mitigation, oversight, complaints, and sanctions, creating a broader platform-governance approach rather than mirroring either California or Australia exactly.

For APAC marketers, the practical problem is the patchwork. A youth campaign designed for one market may face different account rules, feature restrictions, age-assurance systems, and advertising constraints in another. Global campaign templates will increasingly need local regulatory assumptions built into media planning and creator strategy.

What marketers should do before 2027

Start by auditing how much teen reach depends on algorithmic recommendation and autoplay rather than intentional discovery. Separate paid targeting from organic recommendation in reporting where possible, and identify which creator partnerships rely heavily on younger audiences or on platform discovery mechanics.

Then build alternatives that do not depend entirely on personalized feeds. Search, owned communities, email or direct subscriptions, creator followership, and other opt-in channels can become more important when algorithmic reach is constrained. Brands should also review creator contracts, audience-age data, targeting settings, and campaign measurement assumptions before California’s rules are fully operational.

The broader lesson is that youth marketing regulation is moving deeper into the mechanics of distribution. Marketers do not control how platforms implement AB 1709, but they do control how dependent their campaigns are on those mechanics. This is not legal advice, and brands operating in youth-facing categories should check specific obligations with qualified counsel.