Federal Judge Refuses to Pause California Social Media Addiction Law Case

A federal judge in San Jose, California, declined to completely freeze proceedings in a lawsuit challenging California’s new social media regulation law, ordering the state and tech companies to explore starting limited discovery despite an ongoing appeal.

Senior U.S. District Judge Edward Davila held a hearing regarding requests from Google, Meta, and TikTok to pause the litigation. The tech platforms sought to stay court proceedings while appealing a decision that refused to block Senate Bill 976, known as the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act.

Tech Giants Argue Proceedings Should Pause During Appeal

The social media platforms argued that proceeding with pre-trial discovery creates unnecessary confusion while the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviews the case. Meta attorney Isaac Chaput, representing all three platforms, stated that oral arguments before the appellate court are expected next March, making it difficult to determine what evidence will be relevant without Ninth Circuit guidance.

Chaput warned that starting document exchanges and depositions now could waste judicial resources if the appellate ruling changes the legal standards. He noted that any decision from the Ninth Circuit could dramatically alter the legal framework governing the case.

State Pushes for Evidence Collection on Youth Harms

Representatives for California Attorney General Rob Bonta urged the court to allow document collection to begin. Samuel Sokolsky, representing the attorney general’s office, suggested gathering information regarding what social media companies knew about potential harms to children, including internal research conducted by the platforms.

Sokolsky noted that the state could potentially pull information from multi-district litigation currently underway in Oakland federal court, which involves similar questions about addictive algorithms. However, Chaput countered that information from that litigation dates back to 2009 and would be overly broad and stale for the current dispute.

What This Means for Families and Minors in California

Senate Bill 976 aims to regulate online content feeds and algorithms that present personalized content to underage users. Tech companies claim that restricting recommended feeds regulates protected expression and violates the First Amendment, while state officials argue algorithms simply crunch data without human decision-making.

Because Judge Davila denied the preliminary injunction in August and refused to stop pre-trial proceedings, California’s legal defense of its child protection measure remains active while appellate fights continue. Parents, minors, and tech users will not see immediate changes to their feeds today, but the ongoing court proceedings move the state closer to establishing how platforms handle algorithmic content for children.

Judge Schedules Further Discussions on Discovery Scope

Rather than ruling immediately on the motion to freeze the lawsuit, Judge Davila scheduled additional hearings so both sides can define what limited discovery can safely proceed without waiting for appellate guidance. The judge emphasized that he did not want months to pass without progress while the appellate court considers the matter.

If you or your family are involved in legal disputes concerning online privacy, youth safety regulations, or digital media platforms, speaking with a qualified attorney can help you understand your rights under evolving state and federal laws.

This article is general information based on Courthouse News Service and court or agency records available at publication time. It is not legal advice; laws and deadlines differ by state and by case. Published October 22, 2026.