Help us make digital spaces safe for children and young people.
US courts and lawmakers are telling tech companies that safety by design is not optional
From TikTok’s court loss to Meta’s $17 billion settlement, US courts and states are forcing tech companies to make child safety a design requirement, not an afterthought.
For years, the tech industry’s message to families was simple: manage the risks yourselves. Companies launched product after product without making sure they were safe for children, leaving parents and children to navigate complicated settings designed to be ignored.
In 2026, that message is being overruled across US courtrooms and statehouses. From Texas to California a fast-moving group of US states is codifying age-appropriate design into law. The fight is not over but the direction of travel across the country is clear and follows a principle that 5Rights has long argued: products and services used by children must be safe by design.
Courts no longer accept box-ticking as compliance
In September, a Texas district court found TikTok liable for misleading the public about how well its “Restricted Mode” actually protected minors from explicit content. Days later, a federal judge in California reviewing TikTok’s $400 million child-privacy settlement with the Department of Justice pushed back on part of the deal that would terminate an existing consent decree, unconvinced that the replacement amounted to a meaningful fix.
These two rulings are the latest developments in a much broader pattern: as of September 1st, thousands of cases regarding online addiction and related harms were pending in federal multidistrict litigation, with thousands of additional coordinated claims in California alone and school districts suing separately over the costs of addictive design.
US states move to implement safety by design principles
While courts are responding to harm that has already happened, several US states are working on legislation to prevent it in the first place.
In September, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law an updated version of the California Age-Appropriate Design Code (CAADC), originally modelled on the UK Age-Appropriate Design Code that 5Rights championed. This update followed years of extensive litigation from NetChoice, a lobbying association representing major tech companies like Amazon, Meta, and Google, that challenged the original CAADC on First Amendment grounds.
Rather than succumbing to tech pressure, California stood its ground and updated the CAADC, expanding it with a wider package of child online safety laws covering addictive feeds, AI companion chatbots, AI-enabled toys, and AI systems posing as therapy. The result is a two-layered approach, still grounded in safety by design principles but paired with precise rules targeting the specific risks children encounter today.
Other states are following suit. In New Jersey, Governor Sherrill signed the Kids Code Act into law in early August and similar bills are being discussed in Michigan and Minnesota, while Massachusetts has taken a narrower but still meaningful step , targeting specific features like addictive feeds and autoplay.
While different states are taking different approaches, it’s clear that policymakers have reached the same conclusion: we should not tolerate companies profiting off our children if they can’t provide a safe environment for them.
This legislative progress has come as Meta agreed to a $17 billion settlement after being sued by more than half of US states over addictive design claims. The company has not only agreed to pay a fine but will also implement some product changes across the US, including default time limits for under-18s, restrictions on certain features and independent compliance auditing.
“No business pays out billions without recognising that there was a strong case against them and now the message for tech firms everywhere, not just social media, must be crystal clear: the cost of harming kids is greater than the cost of making your product safe.”
Leanda Barrington-Leach, Executive Director at 5Rights
None of these developments alone would justify optimism, but together they illustrate a system working to close the gap between tech companies’ incentive to maximise their profits and children’s need to feel safe and empowered online. The EU KIDS Act reflects the same shift on the other side of the Atlantic and is further proof of a broader retreat from the idea that tech gets to set its own rules.
Real work remains. Several of these laws are still being discussed but what matters is that the question being asked in courtrooms and statehouses has changed. It is no longer about who’s responsible for children’s safety online but about howtech companies profiting from children’s attention are held accountable .
