Two bills in California would change how social media companies design their apps. One bill would force platforms to remove features designed to keep people scrolling. The other would require warning labels about addiction risks.

Assemblyman Josh Lowenthal introduced the first bill, called AB 1709, which would require Meta, TikTok, Instagram, and other platforms to remove addictive features SFGATE. A second bill, AB 56, introduced by Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan in 2025, would instead require platforms to post warnings similar to those on cigarette packages LegiScan.

The timing matters. In March 2026, a jury ruled that Meta and Google had negligently designed their platforms to be harmful to young people and awarded damages Reuters. During the trial, lawyers pointed to "infinite scroll" — the feature where new posts automatically load as you scroll, so there is no natural stopping point — as an example of deliberate addictive design Reuters.

California already has laws on this topic. In 2023, the state passed a rule requiring platforms to make "age appropriate" design choices for young users Reuters. These new bills would take the next step by targeting specific features or requiring public warnings.

Two Different Solutions

AB 1709 would tell platforms what they cannot do. It would ban features like infinite scroll, autoplay videos, and notifications timed to pull you back into the app. Engineers would have to redesign the entire system to stop maximizing time spent in the app.

AB 56 would require a warning label instead. It would work like the labels on alcohol or tobacco — platforms would have to tell you (or your parents) that social media is designed to be addictive. The platforms would not have to change anything. They would just have to disclose the risk.

For the companies, the difference is huge. Removing features means rewriting the code at the heart of how the app works. Adding a label is much simpler to build but might expose the platform to lawsuits if the label is later found to be inadequate.

What the Jury Verdict Means

The jury verdict is significant because it treated infinite scroll not as a design choice but as negligent engineering — a decision that caused measurable harm. If more courts agree, then platform companies could face liability for the way they design engagement mechanics across all their apps, not just Meta and Google.

The $6 million verdict is relatively small compared to what these companies earn. Also, one jury verdict does not set a legal rule that all courts must follow. However, lawyers in future cases will use this verdict as evidence that infinite scroll and similar tricks are harmful.

California has enormous influence on tech companies because so many people use platforms there. Usually, if a state passes a tech law, major platforms change their app nationwide rather than build two different versions. So whatever California decides may end up affecting how all Americans experience social media.

Neither bill has passed yet. What happens in the coming legislative votes will determine whether the jury's finding about infinite scroll leads to real changes in how platforms work or remains just one case.