Bipartisan support for under-16 social media ban as Newsom signals support

Bipartisan support is building in Sacramento for age verification on social media, as California’s lawmakers join a widening national and international push to restrict minors’ access to online platforms. With governments in Australia and parts of Europe moving ahead with under-16 bans, and several states across the United States testing age verification laws, Assembly Bill 1709 is emerging as California’s most direct attempt to set a minimum age for social media accounts.

The bill’s author, Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal, welcomed Gov. Gavin Newsom’s recent signal that he would back legislation restricting children under 16 from social media.

“I’m deeply grateful for Governor Newsom’s willingness to speak out on this issue,” Lowenthal said in a statement. “He’s someone who, above all else, leads as a dad. His family faces the same worries as mine, and the millions of other California families who are exhausted and heartbroken by the very real, harmful effects of social media on our children.”

Protecting minors online is increasingly being treated as a rare point of bipartisan agreement in Sacramento, even as broader tech regulation remains politically fraught — and not always destined to get Newsom’s support. In numerous cases over the last two years the governor has vetoed bills, which he felt were too onerous and would likely hinder California’s AI and tech sector. Lowenthal’s bill however has drawn support across the aisle.

“As a father of four, I am deeply concerned about the impact of social media when it comes to school, friendships, and personal image and confidence,” Assemblymember Joe Patterson, a Republican co-author of the bill, told State Affairs. “I’m authoring AB 1709 with a group of bipartisan, parent legislators because it’s hard to deny the risks social media has on our kids.”

“Kids should be playing with their friends and studying for school, not becoming addicted to social media as their brains are being developed,” Patterson added. “The warning signs are there, and we have a responsibility to take them seriously before we lose an entire generation.”

Democratic lawmakers, many of whom have spent the past two years advancing platform-safety and child-protection measures, are increasingly coalescing around age verification as the next phase of tech regulation.

“As a legislator and a mother, I have been deeply concerned about how children, at increasingly young ages, are being swept up into social media platforms designed to keep them hooked and scrolling through the social slot machine at all costs,” said Assemblymember Mia Bonta, chair of the California Legislative Children’s Caucus.

Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, who has been at the forefront of California’s recent efforts to regulate social media companies and expand youth online protections, said the governor’s signal of support marks an inflection point in the debate.

“Our children’s mental health must come first,” Bauer-Kahan told State Affairs. “I’m encouraged to see momentum building around stronger guardrails for young people on social media. I welcome Governor Newsom’s support for thoughtful age-based social media safeguards.”

She added that enforcement and infrastructure will be critical. “The state must set up infrastructure to provide consumer protections on these platforms that are meaningful for our kids,” Bauer-Kahan said. “As we continue this conversation, we must ensure platforms are held accountable and that families are given the tools and protections they need to keep kids safe in today’s digital world.”

In Australia, ‘everybody was on board’

The international movement is informing California’s approach. In December, Australia began enforcing a nationwide restriction barring children under 16 from holding social media accounts, paired with a centralized online safety regulator. Speaking at a public debate on tech policy hosted by the Center for Information Technology, Equity, and Democracy (CITED) in Sacramento last month, Lowenthal described being in Australia as the policy was rolled out and witnessing broad bipartisan support.

“It’s not controversial, shocking, like you think here, like this would really make the ground shake underneath us,” Lowenthal said. “Everybody was on board, it was a bipartisan issue, even rural communities, urban communities, different races.”

Newsom’s comments, first reported by POLITICO, marked a notable departure from his typical reluctance to weigh in on pending legislation before it reaches his desk. Asked about age gating at a press conference late last week, the governor said the state must confront teenagers’ chronic use of social media.

“We need help. I think it’s long overdue that we’re having the debate,” Newsom said. “It is something that I’m very grateful that we are debating and pursuing at the state level.”

Even with bipartisan backing and the governor’s support, the bill is likely to face resistance from the tech industry. Google, TikTok and Meta are currently suing to block a 2024 California law requiring parental consent before minors can view personalized content feeds, arguing it violates the First Amendment. Industry groups have warned that age verification systems could raise privacy concerns and trigger constitutional challenges.

The debate is unfolding as Silicon Valley ramps up its political engagement in Sacramento, pouring millions into super PACs aimed at shaping the state’s regulatory climate. At the same CITED forum, Lowenthal warned that the scale of tech’s political spending complicates efforts to impose new guardrails.

“It scares me,” he said. “Campaign finance is one of the most broken parts of our system. These companies don’t pay for the mental health damage their products create, yet their political spending is enormous.”

Still, Lowenthal argues that Australia’s experience shows the politics need not be explosive — and that young people themselves may welcome clearer boundaries.

“Kids were on board,” he said. “Kids who’ve been feeling  FOMO (fear of missing out), feeling this pressure to be on all the time… And they just wanted relief.”

“There was no goal to be punitive to anyone,” Lowenthal added. “There’s no goal to be punitive to the platforms, and certainly not to any of the end users.”