California Assembly Bill 1709: Regulating Addictive Social Media Features

California AB 1709 Targets "Addictive Features" to Protect Minors

California Assembly Bill 1709 seeks to eliminate "psychologically exploitative features" designed to maximize engagement on social media platforms for users under the age of 16. The legislation moves away from an outright ban on social media for minors, instead placing the burden on tech companies to provide alternative, less addictive interfaces or face the prohibition of underage accounts on their platforms.

The Shift from Age-Gating to Feature Regulation

Initially introduced in February by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal, AB 1709 was first proposed as a ban on children under 16 from using platforms designed to be "dangerously addictive." However, after hearings with advocates and industry lobbyists, the bill was amended to avoid the pitfalls of age-gating the internet.

Lawmakers cited several reasons for rejecting a total ban:

• Isolation: Critics argued that banning social media would isolate teenagers, particularly LGBTQ+ youth who rely on online communities for support.
• Privacy: Concerns were raised that mandatory age verification would violate user data privacy.
• Free Speech: Questions arose regarding whether a ban would infringe upon free speech rights.

In response, Lowenthal amended the bill to require companies to implement a less addictive feed for underage users. If companies fail to comply, users under 16 will be unable to create accounts. Lowenthal clarified that the intent is to "block predatory behavior," not to block access to the internet itself.

Defining "Addictive Features"

Under the revised proposal, an "addictive feature" is defined as a "psychologically exploitative feature intended to maximize engagement that foreseeably lead to compulsive use." The bill specifically narrows this definition to include:

• Addictive feeds (such as the infinite scroll)
• Autoplay
• Other features as defined by the California Attorney General

Companies will have until 2028 to adjust their platforms to comply with these regulations. The bill also proposes the creation of an oversight group of experts to advise the California Attorney General’s Office.

Industry Response and Political Context

Tech industry representatives, including lobbyist Rob Boykin of TechNet, expressed appreciation for the amendments, arguing that an outright ban would be a "one size fits all" approach that would lead teenagers to use less safe, unregulated workarounds.

While Meta representatives suggested parental controls as a middle ground, Assemblymember Lowenthal rejected this proposal. He noted that while he does not view Big Tech as the problem but rather the solution, he acknowledged the pressure from Wall Street to maximize quarterly performance, stating, "regretfully, addiction pays."

Technical and UX Perspectives

Discussion among technical communities highlights a tension between "good UX" and "addictive design."

Arguments Against Infinite Scroll

Several critics argue that infinite scroll is an unnecessary feature designed solely to increase time-on-app. Technical drawbacks mentioned include:

• Performance Issues: Infinite scrolls can cause browsers to crash or lag as more content is loaded into the DOM.
• Navigation Friction: The lack of pagination makes it difficult to return to specific points in a feed and often makes website footers inaccessible.
• Psychological Impact: The combination of infinite scroll with algorithmic curation is viewed by some as a "digital version of crack cocaine," creating a loop of audiovisual stimuli tailored to the user's interests.

Arguments for Design Flexibility

Other perspectives suggest that regulating specific UI patterns is too granular and potentially ineffective:

• UX Ambiguity: There is a fine line between a feature that makes a product easier to use (like media previews) and one that is addictive.
• The Business Model Problem: Some argue that the real issue is the targeted advertising business model, which incentivizes engagement at any cost. They suggest banning paid advertising or mandating open APIs to allow users to choose their own interfaces.
• Implementation Concerns: There are worries that large companies like Meta can afford to hire PhDs to design "compliant yet addictive" features, while smaller indie developers may struggle with the regulatory burden.

"I think the most frustrating thing for me is when a website has infinite scroll, but also a footer with links that you want to access. I end up going to the dev tools to look at the code."

"Infinite scroll is very obviously unnecessary. It is very obviously intended to keep people on an app longer than they would otherwise use it."