What Changes During Adolescence?

Take our Video Gaming Test

Find a therapist to support kids and teens

California’s new social media law targets addictive design for kids under 16, not screen time or content.

Constant online stressors keep the nervous system from returning to baseline, stacking stress

Teens' reward and social brain systems are highly responsive, which makes addictive design especially risky.

Kids can't police their own online safety. That duty belongs to companies and the adults entrusted with them.

For two decades, the debate about kids and technology has circled around two questions: too much screen time, or exposure to bad content? Both matter. But science, the courts, and now lawmakers are converging on a different target: the product's design.

A screen is a window. Content is what passes through it. Design is the machinery that decides what comes through, how fast, for how long, and whether a child can ever walk away.

What California just did

On September 10, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a package of child online-safety bills (1). The centerpiece, AB 1709, takes effect January 1, 2027, and bars platforms from offering users under 16 addictive features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, and feeds that learn from their behavior to keep them engaged. SB 1119, “Adam’s Law,” requires companion chatbots to follow crisis protocols when a minor expresses suicidal thoughts and to undergo annual independent safety audits. Other bills pause AI chatbot toys and target AI-generated child sexual abuse material.

California isn’t alone. New York’s SAFE for Kids Act will restrict algorithmic feeds for minors starting in 2027 (2). Utah and Alabama have passed laws requiring app stores to verify users’ ages, and Idaho, Oregon, and Washington enacted companion-chatbot laws this year (3).

Notice what these laws don’t do. They don’t ban phones or police opinions. They regulate addictive design features.

Prevention is cheaper than litigation

In March, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and YouTube negligent in a case brought by a young woman who began using their platforms as a child. The case centered on design, not on what users posted. About 2,000 similar cases are pending (4).

In August, Meta settled with state attorneys general mid-trial for roughly $17 billion (subject to court approval), without admitting wrongdoing. Read the terms, and you’ll find a design document: no like counts on minors’ posts, a nighttime block, notifications silenced during school hours, an optional non-personalized feed (5).

Building those fixes in from the start would likely have cost far less, and spared children harm that no settlement can refund.

The machinery of compulsion

Let's look at how design breeds compulsive behavior.

Variable reward. Dopamine neurons fire most for rewards we don’t see coming (6). A feed that’s occasionally wonderful works like a slot machine: maybe the next swipe will be great. A post every now and then receiving some unexplained attention (likes, shares) is what I mean by variable reward. It makes being famous a possibility, even if extremely unlikely. Like the gambler's fallacy, a........

© Psychology Today