EXPLAINED | Can Teens Keep Instagram Without the Algorithm? California’s New Law Faces a Court Test

A 15-year-old could still tap on a Reel from a friend. The queue of videos Instagram picks for her based on what she watched last night is the kind of feature California wants switched off. Under a law signed in September, platforms can keep under-16 accounts if they turn off the features the law covers. Otherwise, they must delete the accounts and the associated personal data.

On November 4, 2026, Instagram owner Meta, YouTube owner Google and TikTok filed separate federal lawsuits against California Attorney General Rob Bonta. The law is due to take effect on January 1, 2027. Bonta’s office said it was reviewing the lawsuits and would defend California’s online child-safety laws.

Can a 15-year-old keep her Instagram account?

Yes, if Instagram keeps the account free of the features California defines as addictive. The law, Assembly Bill 1709, names personalised feeds that meet its definition and autoplay. It also lets the attorney general define additional features through regulations. It applies to California residents and puts the duty to comply on the platform. How much of the app a 15-year-old would get depends on what Instagram chooses to offer.

What does the algorithm actually do?

It helps decide what you see first and what you see next. Instagram says its main feed includes suggested posts alongside posts from people you follow. It also offers a Following view that shows posts from accounts you chose, with the newest first. California is targeting feeds that use information tied to a user or their device to pick or rank posts, subject to exceptions. A feed based on what you lingered over yesterday works differently from one that shows the latest posts from people you chose to follow.

Could teens still search, send messages and watch Reels?

The law’s feed definition exempts direct private messages and search terms that aren’t permanently linked to the user or their device. It also makes room for a post or creator the user expressly asked to see, under conditions that include no autoplay for audio or video. So, a teen could, in principle, tap to watch a Reel from a creator she follows. The law leaves room for that choice while restricting the app’s ability to line up clips based on her past behaviour.

Can a parent switch the recommendations back on?

The new law gives parents no override for the covered features before 16. California’s earlier law, Senate Bill 976, took a different approach: it made verifiable parental consent a route to giving minors personalised feeds. That law has faced separate legal challenges. The November lawsuits target AB 1709, which would prevent a platform from turning those features back on for under-16s even if a parent agreed.

How would Instagram know how old you are?

The law points platforms to California’s Digital Age Assurance Act before they provide a covered feature. Under that system, a service can receive an age bracket, such as 13 to 15, through the device’s operating system or app-store system. The bracket can be shared without giving the app an exact birthday. If the platform can’t verify age that way, AB 1709 directs it to use the age-determination process set out in the earlier law.

Why are Meta, Google and TikTok suing?

They argue that choosing which posts and videos to show, and in what order, is an editorial decision protected by the First Amendment, the US Constitution’s guarantee of free speech. Google also says recommendations can help young people find age-appropriate videos, and the companies argue that parents should have more say. They invoke Section 230 as well. That federal law generally shields platforms from being treated as the publisher of material posted by other people. The courts must decide how those protections apply when a state regulates the design that delivers those posts.

The US Supreme Court said in a 2024 case involving Texas and Florida that selecting and arranging other people’s posts can be protected expression. California makes a different case for its law. It says it is protecting children from features designed to keep them engaged, whatever the subject of the video. The 2024 ruling gives the companies a precedent to cite. It leaves the California question open.

Would switching off recommendations make teens safer?

It would remove one way apps can keep supplying material without a teen having to look for it. Whether that improves sleep, mood or wellbeing is a separate question. A 2024 review by the US National Academies found that the evidence it examined did not establish that social media caused changes in adolescent health across the population. What a young person does on an app and what they encounter there can matter as much as how long they spend on it. The California cases concern whether the state can require the design changes. They won’t by themselves tell us how those changes affect children.

How far does California go compared with Australia and India?

Australia goes further on access. Since December 10, 2025, platforms including Instagram have had to take reasonable steps to stop Australians under 16 from opening or keeping accounts. California leaves room for an account with the covered features switched off.

India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act regulates how companies use children’s information. It defines a child as anyone under 18 and generally requires verifiable parental consent before a company processes their personal data. Subject to exemptions, it also bars tracking, behavioural monitoring and targeted advertising directed at children. Those provisions are scheduled to come into force in May 2027. Instagram already offers Teen Accounts in India, with tighter messaging and content settings. The Indian law raises a different question for those accounts: what information can Instagram use to decide what an under-18 user sees?

Could a judge stop the January 1 switch?

Yes. A federal court’s public log lists a preliminary injunction filing in Meta’s case on November 5. A preliminary injunction is a temporary court order that could stop enforcement while a lawsuit proceeds. The filing itself leaves the January 1 date in place. If the rules take effect on schedule, the choice will fall to each platform: keep offering an account without the covered features or stop offering the account to that age group.