(CN) - A handful of social media giants have filed suit against California - a pushback against a law they say violates their First Amendment rights.

TikTok, Meta Platforms, Google and YouTube argue in federal court that Senate Bill 976, the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, unlawfully blocks minors from accessing personalized feeds without parental consent. They say restricting personalized feeds, which determine what users see when they scroll, regulates protected expression and imposes unconstitutional burdens on First Amendment-protected actions.

The plaintiffs also note the law caps a minor's personalized feed at one hour, even with parental permission, unless the parent explicitly authorizes more time.

"The state can no more dictate how platforms make such editorial decisions than it can tell a newspaper which articles to present or how to present them," TikTok states in its suit. "California's Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act does exactly that."

The companies all seek the same relief: a ruling that the challenged provisions of the law are unconstitutional under the First Amendment, along with an order barring the state from enforcing them.

Meta, Google and YouTube, which also filed suit Thursday in the Northern District of California, make arguments similar to TikTok's.

Meta, Facebook's parent company, further argues that tailoring content to readers is a longstanding practice, comparing personalized feeds to newspapers, pamphleteers and modern websites that curate stories based on reader interests, from sports sites to news outlets with personalized story lists.

"Surely, the state could not require museums or bookstores to eliminate their category classifications and place their works of art or books in random order without confronting the First Amendment - even if, in theory, the works remain available to their patrons," Meta says.

Google and YouTube, the latter a subsidiary of Google, argue that YouTube's view recommendations are based on a user's viewing history and preferences, as shown by what they "like" and "dislike." YouTube also makes content judgments after consulting experts on what's age-appropriate.

That gives minors access to an array of content while keeping what they see appropriate, the companies say.

"These restrictions on personalized feeds burden YouTube's protected right to express its view as to the content it believes will be relevant, valuable, and appropriate for each particular user," the companies argue. "They also burden the rights of minors to access speech and discover content without the permission of a parent."

The law has faced judicial scrutiny before.

In November 2024, NetChoice - an internet trade association with members including social media companies - filed suit to stop California from enforcing the law. A judge in January granted some relief to NetChoice but declined to block most of the law.

Google and YouTube say the judge found that NetChoice had made no record to show unconstitutionality. Additionally, the judge decided NetChoice couldn't challenge the law on behalf of its members.

The case went to the Ninth Circuit, which also granted a temporary injunction that stopped the state from enforcing the act during the appeal.

However, the Ninth Circuit ultimately held that NetChoice lacked associational standing to challenge the law's personalized-feed provisions. It denied its petition for rehearing and issued its mandate on Thursday.

Source: Courthouse News Service