Social Media Safety for Minors Act

Social Media Safety for Minors Act

Date Passed: Passed the Senate on July 30, 2024 (as KOSA), but has not yet passed the

House, but could be signed into law as of early 2026.

Background:

This legislative proposal emerged in response to growing concerns regarding the impact of

algorithmic social media feeds on the mental health of children and teenagers. Supporters,

including various child advocacy groups and bipartisan lawmakers, argue that tech companies

have failed to self-regulate, leading to increased rates of anxiety, depression, and cyberbullying.

Opponents, including tech industry trade groups and free-speech advocates, argue that the bill

places an undue burden on private companies and infringes upon the First Amendment rights of

both minors and parents to access information.

Key Features:

Age Verification: Requires platforms to implement "robust" methods to verify the age of users.

Default Privacy Settings: Mandates that accounts for users under 18 be set to the highest

privacy level by default.

Algorithmic Restrictions: Prohibits platforms from using "addictive" recommendations

algorithms on minor accounts without explicit parental consent.

Key Concerns Raised by Opponents:

Privacy Risks: Critics argue that "robust age verification" would require users to upload

sensitive ID documents, creating new data security risks.

Censorship: Some groups fear that vague definitions of "harmful content" will lead platforms to

over-censor educational resources.

Parental Autonomy: Opponents believe the government is overstepping into the role of the

parent by dictating how families interact with technology.

Constitutional Concerns:

Opponents cite NetChoice v. Bonta, arguing that government-mandated "safety" filters act as a

prior restraint on speech. Supporters counter that the government has a "compelling interest" in

protecting children, similar to regulations on tobacco or alcohol advertising.

Relevant Court Cases Include:

NetChoice, LLC v. Bonta (2023): A preliminary injunction was granted against a similar

California law on First Amendment grounds.

Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004): Established that the government must use the "least restrictive

means" when regulating internet content to protect children.

International Context:

The United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act and the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA)

already impose strict "duty of care" requirements on tech firms. Supporters argue the U.S. is an

outlier in its lack of digital protections, while opponents argue the U.S. Constitution provides

stronger speech protections than those in Europe.

Conclusion:

The Social Media Safety for Minors Act represents a fundamental tension between protecting

vulnerable populations and upholding the principles of free expression and data privacy. The

debate centers on whether the documented risks to youth mental health justify a more

interventionist approach by the federal government.