Assemblyman Josh Lowenthal has introduced AB 1709, a California bill that would require social media companies to remove addictive features from their platforms SFGATE. His proposal runs parallel to AB 56, introduced by Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan in the 2025-2026 legislative session, which would mandate warning labels on social media platforms LegiScan.

Neither bill yet specifies which features would be targeted, but the timing is not incidental. On March 25, 2026, a U.S. jury found Meta and Google negligent for designing platforms that harm young people, awarding $6 million in damages Reuters. During the trial, infinite scroll — the auto-loading feed that removes natural stopping points from browsing — was cited as an example of harmful design Reuters.

California is not approaching this entirely fresh. In February 2023, the state passed legislation requiring "age appropriate design" standards for platforms serving minors Reuters. AB 1709 and AB 56 extend that framework — moving from requiring companies to follow good design processes toward mandating the removal of specific features and requiring public disclosure of risks.

Two Regulatory Approaches, Different Leverage Points

AB 1709 targets the engineering layer directly. It would compel companies to remove features classified as addictive — which in practice means auditing engagement mechanics such as autoplay, infinite scroll, algorithmic feed ranking optimized for session length, and notification systems designed to drive re-engagement.

AB 56 takes a different route. It pursues a disclosure model — closer in spirit to warnings on cigarette packaging than to a feature ban. A warning-label requirement would not force platforms to change their architecture; it would instead require them to inform users, or more likely minors and their guardians, about addiction risks. Compliance costs and enforcement rules for both bills have not yet been defined through the legislative process, and neither has been scheduled for a floor vote.

For engineering and product teams, the distinction carries real weight. A mandate to remove features under AB 1709 would require rearchitecting the recommendation and feed systems at the core of most social platforms — a significant undertaking, particularly given that these platforms' business models depend heavily on maximizing time spent in the app. A labeling requirement under AB 56 is comparatively straightforward to implement technically, though it carries its own legal and reputational risk if the labels are later challenged as inadequate or misleading in court.

What the Courtroom Verdict Signals

The March jury verdict against Meta and Google gives California legislators a courtroom record to cite as they advance these bills. Juries assessing "negligent design" claims have been asked to weigh product decisions — infinite scroll, autoplay, notification timing — as engineering choices with measurable harm, rather than as protected editorial judgment. If this framing survives appeal and shapes future cases, it could shift how courts evaluate liability for any company shipping engagement-optimized consumer software, not just Meta and Google.

The $6 million verdict is modest relative to the platforms' revenue and scale, and a single jury outcome does not carry the binding weight of an appellate decision. That said, plaintiffs' lawyers in other cases are certain to reference the infinite-scroll finding as persuasive authority, regardless of its formal legal precedent.

Both bills remain in the legislative process, and their final language, scope, and enforcement mechanisms could change substantially before any vote. What matters here is the direction: California legislators are signaling that engagement-engineering decisions — the technical choices that maximize time in app — may shift from product discretion toward statutory design obligation. Because California's market size makes separate product versions by state commercially impractical, a state-level mandate often becomes the de facto national standard for platform design.

Neither bill has been reported as enacted. The committee markups and floor votes ahead will show whether the courtroom finding on infinite scroll remains an isolated verdict or becomes the first step in a broader regulatory approach to how platforms engineer user behavior.