A US federal judge has refused to pause parts of a California law that social media companies must comply with while they appeal his earlier decision.
US District Judge Edward J. Davila has denied motions for injunctions pending appeal filed by Meta, TikTok, Google, and YouTube. The order means that three provisions of the law, SB 976, that the companies are challenging can for now remain in force.
The provisions are Health and Safety Code Sections 27001(a), 27002(b)(2), and 27002(b)(4) – which the judge refers to as the personalized-feed provisions.
The three cases were originally filed on November 13, 2025.
Section 27001(a) currently prohibits an operator from providing an "addictive feed" to a user if the operator has actual knowledge that the user is a minor, unless it has verifiable parental consent. An addictive feed is defined as one that uses information supplied by or associated with the user or device to recommend, select, or prioritize multiple pieces of media generated or shared by users – with some exceptions.
Section 27002(b)(2) requires a tool that a verified parent can use to limit a minor's access to an "addictive feed" to one hour per day, unless the parent changes the limit. Another provision, 27002(b)(4), lets a verified parent require a default feed that does not rank media using information associated with the user or device, except for their age or minor status.
In his August 21 order, Judge Davila stood by his August 5 decision, where he rejected the argument that curation of a personalized feed is protected expression.
"This decision is not an 'expressive' message; it is merely a mirror that reflects back to users their own perceived interests."
The order also states that the public and the state have an interest in enforcing the provisions, designed to protect children's health.
"Rather, the personalized feed provisions were adopted by the State to protect the mental and physical health of children, an extremely important justification and one often found compelling by courts."
The August 5 decision had denied the first preliminary injunction requests, while noting that further factual development could reveal that the provisions are unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs appealed on August 11, and the August 21 order was a response to their request to halt the three provisions' enforcement during that appeal. An August 24 filing said that by August 28, the companies planned to ask the district court to stay proceedings and deadlines during the appeal.
The personalized-feed restriction currently applies only to users that platforms actually know are minors.
From January 1, 2027, operators must reasonably determine that a user is not a minor – or obtain verifiable parental consent before providing covered features. The proposed regulations on how this should be done were published by the California Department of Justice in May and list a variety of “age-assurance” methods, from facial analysis to zero-knowledge proofs. That means giving up your privacy.
