IT’S BEEN A WHIRLWIND 12 months marked by many changes in politics, pop culture, tech and what some have referred to as a “brain-rotted” social media landscape.
In 2024, the Oxford University Press chose “brain rot” as its word of the year, referring to the decline of a person’s intellectual state from overconsumption of online content. The idea carried into 2025, when Dictionary.com named “67” its word of the year, reflecting a recently popularized trend on social media.
While these trends may seem trivial to some, lawmakers are focusing on privacy risks and the addictive nature of social media in general — passing several laws that will restrict its use for minors in California by 2027.
The first of the laws is State Bill 976 — or the Protecting Our Kids From Social Media Act — authored by former state Sen. Nancy Skinner (who was appointed to the California Energy Commission by Gov. Gavin Newsom in January 2025). This law prohibits platforms from knowingly providing “addictive feeds” to minors without parental consent and restricts notifications during school hours and late at night.
Parents welcome controls; tech companies balk
For parents Praveen Muramalla and Mary Bellapu, these governmental restrictions for teens are welcome, but they say authority should remain with parents.
“The government can do good things, like accepting and approving some of these laws … but parents should definitely get (more) control,” Bellapu said.
“Parents will be under the impression that because now there’s a law, they won’t have to monitor their kid anymore,” Muramalla added. For their own kids, a 13-year-old daughter and a 9-year-old son, “we use the iOS screen time settings … and something called Nighthawk that restricts website access through the Wi-Fi router.”
While she agrees that parental controls help prevent social media overuse, their daughter, Tanya Muramalla, said she worries that SB 976 could unintentionally discourage teens from using social media altogether.
“Having addictive feeds makes people use social media more,” said Muramalla, an 8th grader at Iron Horse Middle School in San Ramon. “But with the law, no one’s gonna use anything anymore; it would minimize the app’s usage.”
Potentially concerned about a decline in users — a worry echoed by some teens — and explicitly arguing that the bill infringes on free speech, NetChoice, a trade association representing companies including Google, Meta and Amazon, challenged SB 976 in court in 2024.
NetChoice ultimately lost, which Khari Johnson, a tech reporter at CalMatters, said he believes the legal dispute suggests the law might make a real impact.
“When companies really start to broadcast their lack of support for something, it’s good to pay attention to why,” Johnson said. “Because sometimes it might actually be effective.”
While SB 976 was passed at its full capacity, another law set to take effect in 2027 was largely scaled back in court.
Assembly Bill 56, or the Social Media Warning Law, requires major social media platforms to display warnings to minors about mental health risks when logging on — after three hours of use and at least once every following hour. The bill was authored by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, D-Orinda, and sponsored by state Attorney General Rob Bonta.
Teens doubt rules will change habits
Despite these measures, Aahaan Nath, a student at California High School in San Ramon, said he doubts it will change teens’ perception or usage of social media.
“Most people who use these social media sites already know about (the health risks),” the 11th grader said. “It won’t make that big of a difference; you can just ignore the warning.”
Before it was amended, AB 56 had the warning taking up a larger portion of the screen, lasting longer and being unskippable for all users, regardless of age. Even with Johnson’s experience covering tech policies, he still gets surprised at how a law changes from its intent to what gets passed.
“I don’t imagine we’ll look back in five years and say, ‘good thing we put that warning because now fewer kids are using it,’” Johnson said. “Sometimes once a law gets passed it’s so … watered down that it doesn’t meaningfully address the issue (it was supposed to).”
“I don’t imagine we’ll look back in five years and say, ‘good thing we put that warning because now fewer kids are using it.’”
Khari Johnson, CalMatters tech reporter
Another law being rolled out in 2027 is Assembly Bill 1043, the Digital Age Assurance Act, co-authored by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, and Sen. Tom Umberg, D-Santa Ana. It requires operating systems and app stores like those run by Apple and Google to verify users’ ages and pass the information to developers, who must provide age-appropriate features that comply with child protection laws.
On one hand, Nath questions its effectiveness, noting how often teenage app users lie about their age. On the other hand, Johnson brings up the point that if this law is heavily enforced, it could impact younger LGBTQIA+ users who may be blocked from accessing their online communities.
“It’s something to consider that there are communities where age verification attempts could have a targeted impact,” Johnson said. “People are having conversations about age verification laws and striking that balance between civil liberties and (parental controls) is a big part of how this plays out.”
Chioma Onyema is a 10th grader at California High School in San Ramon and a CCYJ reporter. This story originally appeared in CCSpin.