Social media age verification laws in the United States

Last updated

Status of social media age verification laws in the United States Social media age verification laws as of may 3, 2025.png
Status of social media age verification laws in the United States

Social media age verification laws in the United States are laws ostensibly designed to limit young people's access to problematic content such as pornography. The design and ultimate intent of such laws is the subject of considerable controversy.

Contents

Laws

Many state legislatures have considered or enacted legislation pertaining to young people and social media.

In 2022, California passed the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (AB 2273) requiring websites that are likely to be used by minors to estimate visitors' ages. [1] [2] [3]

On March 23, 2023, Utah Governor Spencer Cox signed SB 152 and HB 311, collectively known as the Utah Social Media Regulation Act, which requires age verification; if a user is under 18, they have to get parental consent before making an account on any social media platform. [4] [5] [6] [7]

Few laws have gone into effect partially due to court challenges. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

Arkansas

On April 11, 2023, Arkansas enacted SB 396, the Social Media Safety Act. The law requires certain social media companies that make over $100 million per year to verify the age of new users using a third party, and to obtain parental consent for users under 18. It excludes social media companies that allow a user to generate short video clips as well as games. [20] [18] The law was set to go in effect in September 2023. [21]

On June 29, 2023, NetChoice sued the Attorney General of Arkansas Tim Griffin in The Western District Court of Arkansas to block enforcement of the law, [22] [23] supported by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). [24] [25] On July 7, 2023, NetChoice filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the law. [26] On July 27, Griffin and Tony Allen filed briefs in opposition to the preliminary injunction. [27] [28] The preliminary injunction was granted by Judge Timothy L. Brooks on August 31, reasoning that the law was too vague, that NetChoice's members will suffer irreparable harm if the act goes into effect, and that age restrictions were ineffective. [29] [30] [31]

California

California Age-Appropriate Design Code (AB 2273)

On September 15, 2022, California enacted AB 2273, the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act. [32] [33] [3] Its most controversial provisions required online services that are likely to be used by those under 18 to estimate the age of child users with a "reasonable level of certainty". It also required these services to file Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) certifying whether an online product, service, or feature could harm children, including by exposing them to (potentially) harmful content. The law does not define harmful content. [1] Before the law took effect, EFF sent a veto request to Newsom. [34]

On December 14, 2022, NetChoice sued. [35] On September 18, 2023, Federal Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted a preliminary injunction. [36] [37] [10] [38] The 9th Circuit on August 16, 2024, affirmed the injunction against the DPIA section of the law and sent the rest back, because the argument in the 9th circuit was mainly focused on the DPIA. [39] [9] [40] [41]

Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act (SB 976)

On September 20, 2024, California enacted SB 976, Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction. [42] [43] The law requires online platforms to exclude those under 18 from "addictive" feeds absent parental consent. It requires online platforms to not send notifications to someone under 18 between 12:00 AM and 6:00 AM without parental consent or between 8:00 am – 3:00 pm without parental consent from September through May (the law does not define what a "notification" is). The law took effect on January 1, 2025, with age verification required as of December 31, 2026. [44] [45]

On November 12, NetChoice sued in the Northern District and before Judge Edward John Davila. [46] [47] [48] [49] On December 31, the judge blocked the sections of SB 976 that required time-of-day restrictions. He also enjoined requirements to report on the number of minor users as well as the number of parental assents to access an addictive feed. [50]

He did not block the age assurance requirement or blocking minors from seeing addictive feeds without parental consent. His reasoning was that age assurance that runs in the background does not restrict adult access to speech and that regulating feeds does not violate the first amendment because it was content neutral and did not remove any content. [50] [51]

On January 1, 2025, NetChoice filed a motion to fully block the law as part of its appeal to the Ninth Circuit. NetChoice claimed that the court erred in its reading of Supreme Court case Moody v. NetChoice by mainly focusing on the concurring opinions and not the deciding opinion. [52] The same day Davila decreed that California's response to NetChoice was due by 11:59 pm. [53] California responded the same day to NetChoice's motion, claiming that the court should not block the full law, claiming that NetChoice had misread Moody v. NetChoice and that NetChoice's members would not likely face any harm from the act because members such as X (formerly Twitter) already offer their members feeds that were not personalized. [54]

On January 2, Davila granted NetChoice's motion to block the full law during the appeals process by delaying the effective date of the law from January 1, 2025, to February 1, 2025. [55] That day NetChoice appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. [56]

Florida

On January 5, 2024, Tyler Sirois introduced HB 1, which would ban anyone under 16 from using any social media platform and would require platforms to verify the age of users. [57] [58] After the bill passed, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) published a blog post opposing the bill, it bill violates the rights of minors and adults. [59] [60] The bill was vetoed by Governor Ron DeSantis on March 1, 2024, claiming that the State Legislature was going to enact a better alternative. [61] [62] HB 3 then decreased the minimum age from 16 to 14, allowing minors aged 14 and 15 to make social media accounts with parental consent. Florida enacted it on March 25, 2024, and took effect on January 1, 2025. [63] [64] A surge of 1,150% in VPN demand in Florida was detected after the law took effect. VPN services provide the ability to circumvent the law. [65]

On October 28, 2024, NetChoice and Computer and Communications Industry Association sued. The Judge is Chief Judge Mark E. Walker. [66] [67] [68] On February 28, 2025, arguments were heard on the motion for a preliminary injunction. Walker seemed skeptical of Florida's argument that the law did not violate the first amendment and said the State would have a hard time to justify a complete ban of youth under 14 from social media. [69] [70] [71] On March 13, Walker denied the motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs had not proven that at least one of their members had at least 10 percent of their users under 16 use their platform for at least 2 hours per day. [72] Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction which was granted on June 3, for failing First Amendment Intermediate scrutiny. The injunction left in force the provision that allowed parents to request termination of their child's social media account. [73]

Georgia

On April 23, 2024, Georgia enacted SB 351, which became Act 463. [74] [75] Act 463 requires platforms to verify the age of users of social media platforms and require users under 16 years of age to have parental consent before creating an account. It also requires schools to ban all social media platforms, including YouTube. [76] [77] Before the law was signed NetChoice sent a veto request to Kemp claiming the law was unconstitutional and was bad policy. [78] After the bill was enacted, ACLU and NetChoice criticized the bill. [79] [80]

NetChoice sued two months before the law's effective date. The Judge is Amy Totenberg. the suit claims that the law violates the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment s. [81]

Louisiana

Secure Online Child Interaction and Age Limitation Act (SB 162)

On June 28, 2023, Louisiana enacted SB 162, the Secure Online Child Interaction and Age Limitation Act. [82] It requires social media platforms to verify user age and get parental consent for users under 16, prohibits account holders under 16 from messaging adults unless they are already connected, and prohibits the display of advertising based on user data and the unnecessary collection of personal information. A parent or guardian of young users is permitted to monitor the child's account. [83] [84] [85]

The law excludes online email, video games, streaming services, news, sports, and entertainment as long as the content is not user generated. The law is administered by the Department of Justice of Louisiana effective July 1, 2024. [15] [86] [85] However, HB 577 was signed on June 18, 2024, delaying the effective date to July 1, 2025, and amended the Act to include a ban on targeted advertising to minors under 16. [87] [88]

On March 18, 2025, NetChoice sued Attorney General Liz Murrill and the Director of the Public Protection Division of the Louisiana Department of Justice Mike Durpee in the U.S District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. [89]

HB 61

Louisiana enacted HB 61 the same day as SB 162. The law requires parental consent for anyone under 18 before making an account on an "interactive computer service". It took effect on August 1, 2024. [90] [91] [92] [93]

NetChoice testified in opposition to both laws and sent a veto request for HB 61. [94] [95]

Mississippi

On April 30, 2024, Mississippi enacted HB 1126. the Walker Montgomery Protecting Children Online Act. [96]

Section 4 requires digital service providers (DSPs) to make a commercially reasonable effort to verify the age of anyone who wants to make an account in the state of Mississippi and requires parental consent if under 18. [97]

Section 5 requires DSPs to limit collection of minors' personal data, and not collect a minor's geolocation data or display targeted advertising not suitable for minors. [97]

Section 6 requires DSPs to "prevent and mitigate" the posting of harmful content about issues such as eating disorders and substance abuse as well as any illegal activity. [97]

On June 7, 2024, NetChoice sued in the Southern District Court of Mississippi to block enforcement of the law before it took effect on July 1, 2024. [98] On June 18, EFF filed a brief in the case in favor of a preliminary injunction. [99] The state responded on June 18. [100] On June 21, NetChoice filed its reply brief. [101] On July 1, Federal Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden granted a preliminary injunction. [102] [103] [104] [105]

The case was appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on July 5. [106] On April 17, 2025, the Fifth Circuit lifted the preliminary injunction and remanded the case because the District Court did not apply the right standard of review for a facial challenge under Moody v. NetChoice. The opinion was written by Patrick Higginbotham and was joined by Don Willett. Judge James Ho wrote a concurring opinion saying he thought Clarence Thomas' dissent in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association was correct; however, he could not apply it since it was not the opinion of the court. [107]

Nebraska

On May 20, 2025, Nebraska enacted LB 383, the Parental Rights in Social Media Act, which requires social media companies to verify age and obtain parental consent for anyone under 18. Parents are allowed to view the profiles of their minor children. Fines on violators are up to $2,500 per violation, accompanied by a private right of action. The law takes effect July 1, 2026. [108] [109]

New York

On June 20, 2024, New York enacted S7694A. the SAFE For Kids Act. [110] [111] [112] The law requires operators to use age determination technology and not give addictive feeds to anyone under 18 absent parental consent. It requires operators to not send notifications to minors' accounts between 12:00 AM – 6:00 AM without parental consent. [113] The law takes effect 180 days after the Attorney General of New York issues necessary rules and regulations. Violators face up to a $5,000 fine per violation. [113] [111]

The law was criticized by EFF and NetChoice because of its age verification requirement, however neither EFF nor NetChoice has sued New York over the law yet. [114] [115] [116]

Ohio

HB 31

On July 4, 2023, Ohio enacted HB 33. One part of that bill was the Social Media Parental Notification Act, which requires online gaming and social media platforms that are likely to be used by under 16s and requires such users to obtain parental consent before they can make a contract on a social media or online gaming platform. The law took effect on January 15, 2024. [117] [118] [119] [120] Governor Mike DeWine and Lieutenant Governor Jon Husted both advocated for the law to be added in the 2024-2025 bill. [121]

On January 5, 2024, NetChoice sued in the Southern District Court of Ohio claiming the law was unconstitutionally vague and was in violation of the First Amendment and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [122] On January 9, Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley granted a temporary restraining order, temporarily blocking the law. [123] [124] [125] On January 19 Husted filed a brief in opposition to a preliminary injunction, claiming that the law protects minors' mental health and privacy and protecting them from predators and that Ohio had a compelling interest in the law. [126] on On January 26, NetChoice filed another brief. [127] The Attorney General then submitted a reply brief. [128]

On February 7, a hearing on NetChoice's motion was held. [129] On February 12, Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley granted NetChoice's motion. [130] [131] [8] [132]

HB 96

On June 30, 2025, Ohio enaced HB 96, the bill for the fiscal years of 2026–2027, in Ohio. The bill contained the Ohio Innocence Act, which requires websites to verify user ages to prevent minors from viewing harmful content. [133] [134] The law targets porn and other unnamed harmful sites that is primarily centered on explicit content and makes a significant amount of money on said content. [135] Age verification takes effect on September 30, 2025. [136]

Tennessee

On May 2, 2024, Tennessee enacted HB 1891 the Protecting Kids From Social Media Act. [137] [138] [139] The law requires social media companies to verify by a third party the age of all users within 14 days of them attempting to access an existing account and if that user is under 18 years of age, they must obtain parental consent. Parents are allowed to view privacy settings on their children's accounts, set time restrictions, and implement breaks during which the minor cannot access the account. The law took effect January 1, 2025. [140] [141]

On October 3, 2024, NetChoice sued in the Middle District Court of Tennessee. [142] [143] [144] Chief Judge William L. Campbell Jr is assigned to the case. [145] [146]

Texas

On June 13, 2023, Texas enacted HB 18, the SCOPE Act. [147] [148] [149] [150] The law requires minors to obtain parental consent using a commercially reasonable method. [151]

Minors are not allowed to make purchases or engage in other financial transactions. DSPs are not allowed to collect minors' precise location or display targeted advertising to them. [151]

DSPs are required to prevent minors' exposure to harmful material and content that promotes, glorifies, or facilitates suicide, self-harm, eating disorders, substance abuse, stalking, bullying, harassment, grooming, trafficking, child pornography, or other sexual exploitation or abuse. [151]

The bill was criticized by the Chamber of Progress because it required platforms to filter out "grooming" content that could include LGBTQ content and claim that the bill will have an isolating effect on LGBTQ minors. [152]

On July 30, 2024, the Computer and Communications Industry Association and NetChoice sued in the Western District Court of Texas. [153]

Later on, August 16, 2024, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) helped four plaintiffs sue as well. [154]

On August 30, Federal Judge Robert Pitman granted Computer and Communications Industry Association and NetChoice a preliminary injunction against the law's harmful to minors section. [155] [156] [157] [158]

Utah

On March 23, 2023, Utah enacted SB 152 and HB 311, collectively the Utah Social Media Regulation Act. [4] [6] [7] [5] SB 152 requires social media platforms with at least 5 million accounts to verify the age of all account holders. Users under 18 must obtain parental consent. The parent is allowed to view all posts and messages sent to the youth. [5] SB 152 prohibits direct messaging between users if that user is not linked to the account. The act prohibits the display of targeted advertising to minors and requires that, between 10:30 AM – 6:30 PM Mountain Standard Time, minors cannot access social media. [5]

HB 311 creates a private right of action for parents to sue social media companies from causing addiction/harm to minors with a stipulation that, if the minor is under 16, that the social media platform caused the harm. [4]

On December 18, 2023, NetChoice sued, arguing that the law was preempted by federal law, was unconstitutionally vague, and was in violation of the First Amendment and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. On December 20, NetChoice requested a preliminary injunction. [159] [160] [161] [162] On January 19, 2024, Attorney General Sean Reyes announced that the law's effective date was delayed from March 2024 to October 2024 and that they would repeal and replace the law. [163]

SB 194 and HB 464, amending the act, were enacted on March 13, 2024. The amendments removed the 10:30 AM – 6:30 PM restriction and changed it so that parental consent was required only if a minor changed their privacy settings. It also replaced the age verification with age assurance that was at least 95% accurate. [164] [165]

NetChoice updated its complaint and motion on May 3, 2024. [166] [167] Utah briefed its opposition to the motion on May 31. [168] On July 22, Chief Judge Robert J Shelby granted in part the state's motion to dismiss, saying that the law did not violate Section 230 and therefore was not preempted by federal law. [169] [170] On September 10, 2024, Shelby granted NetChoice's motion for a preliminary injunction. [171] [172] [11] [173] The case was appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on October 11. A week later the injunction was stayed by the district court. [174] [175]

Virginia

On May 2, 2025, Virginia enacted 854, an amendment to the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act that requires social media platforms to use commercially reasonable efforts to determine a user's age, and if that user is under 16, limited them to one hour per day per application without parental consent. The parent can increase or decrease the amount of time on a given platform. Violators face a fine of up to $7,500 per incident. The law allows a 30-day curation period since it is part of the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act. The law is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026. [176] [177] [178] [179] [180]

Vetoed legislation

Colorado

On January 23, 2025, SB 25-086, Protections for Users of Social Media, was introduced. The bill requires certain social media platforms to report on how they respond to selected conduct on their services, such as the illegal sale of drugs or guns. Such conduct includes users that have not provided their true age. [181] [182] The bill passed the Senate on February 26 by 28-5 and the House by 46–18 on March 31. [183] [184]

On April 24, Governor Jared Polis vetoed the bill, claiming that it is flawed and erodes privacy. The next day, the Senate voted to overturn the veto by 29–6. [185] The House vote to overturn 51–13, not enough to override. [186] [187]

Vermont

On January 9, 2024, H. 712, the age-appropriate design code, was introduced to the Vermont General Assembly. [188]

The bill requires services likely to be accessed by minors to act in the best interest of minors, which means that such services should process minors' data in a way that does not cause them physical, psychological or financial harm, and does not discriminate based on race, color, religion, national origin, disability, sex, or sexual orientation. [189]

The bill requires covered entities to conduct impact assessments for services that are likely to be accessed by minors to determine whether they would lead minors to become exposed to harmful or discriminatory contacts or conduct. The entities are required to provide any privacy information, terms of service, policies, and community standards concisely and use language that minors can understand. [189]

Covered entities may not collect a minor's precise geolocation information, using dark patterns, or profile a minor by default unless necessary, and must estimate user ages. [189]

Penalties are up to $2,500 per affected user and up to $7,500 per affected user for intentional violations. [189]

On January 17, S. 289, a modified companion bill was introduced in the Vermont Senate. [190] On March 19, S. 289 passed the Senate by a vote of 27–0. [191] [192] [193] On June 7, H. 121 passed the House. On June 13, governor Phil Scott vetoed H. 121, because it had a private right of action and because the Kids Code section of the bill was similar to a California bill that was enjoined for likely violating the First Amendment. [194] [195] On June 17, his veto was sustained. [196]

Proposed legislation

Alabama

On February 6, 2025, HB 235 was introduced in the Alabama House of Representatives. [197] [198] The bill requires any online service that allows users to upload content or view other users' content and employs algorithms that analyze user data or information on users to present content. The bill requires services that meet both criteria to prohibit anyone under 16 from using their service and verify user ages. [198]

Violations are considered a deceptive trade practice actionable under Chapter 19 of Title 8 of the Code of Alabama. Violations can result in fines up to $25,000 per violation and a Class A misdemeanor, which can carry up one year of imprisonment. [198] [199] [200] An online service can be fined an additional $50,000 per violation. [197] [198]

The bill would take effect January 1, 2026. [198]

Alaska

On January 16, 2024, HB 271, the Alaska Social Media Regulation Act, was introduced. The bill requires social media platforms to verify user ages and that minors must have parental consent. [201]

The bill prohibits an online platform from displaying, sending, or targeting an advertisement to a minor or using data collected from a minor for advertising purposes. [202] [203]

The bill prohibits an online platform from:

The bill would be enforced by a private right of action and by the state. [202] [203]

The bill's first reading came on January 16, but died in the Labor & Commerce and Judiciary Committee. [201] [204]

The R Street Institute opposed HB 271, claiming it "would almost certainly be found unconstitutional on several different counts" as well as that it would be governmental intrusion and was overly broad in its definitions. [205]

Arizona

On February 8, 2024, Seth Blattman introduced HB2858, the Protecting Children on Social Media Act, in the House. It failed in the House. The bill would have required social media platforms to:

On January 13, 2025, Nick Kupper introduced HB2112 in the House. [211] Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs signed the bill into law on May 16, 2025. [212] [213] The Act requires any commercial website where over one third of content is "sexual material harmful to minors" to:

The Act authorizes a court to impose civil penalties against an entity in violation of this Act, in an amount up to: [214] [215]

  1. $10,000 per day for failure to comply with age verification;
  2. $10,000 per instance of retaining identifying user data;
  3. $250,000 if one or more minors accesses pornography due to the entity's violation of the age verification requirements of the Act.

Penalties against an entity in violation of this Act are awarded to a successful plaintiff (later added). [215]

The Act specifies that it doesn't apply to news organizations, internet service providers, search engines and cloud services. It also specifies that animated and simulated sexual acts, displayed or described, are included under what is deemed "sexual material that is harmful to minors." [214]

Connecticut

On February 5, 2025, HB 6587 was introduced to the General Assembly. [216] A public hearing was held on February 10. [216] Attorney General William Tong submitted testimony in support, saying that the bill was needed to protect kids from addictive algorithms, that the bill would require social media companies to delete information from the age verification and parental consent process, and that many companies already have age verification for some of their services, easing compliance. [217]

The bill requires operators of social media platforms to:

The bill would take effect on July 1, 2026, except that the transparency section would take effect on March 1, 2027. [218]

Idaho

Senate Bill 1417, the Parental Rights in Social Media Act, was introduced on March 8, 2024. [221]

The bill applies to social media platforms that have at least five million users, that allows users to create a profile, upload posts, and interact with others' posts, while excluding email, streaming services, online gaming, cloud storage services, and academic or scholarly research, as well as professional news, sports, or entertainment. Minor users must obtain parental consent. [222] [223]

The bill would be enforced by a private right of action or the state. Violators can be fined up to $5,000 per violation or $2,500 for each incident of harm or actual damages for addiction, financial, physical, and emotional harm incurred by a minor user. [222] [223]

The bill died in the State Affairs committee. It would have taken effect on January 1, 2025. [221] [222] [223]

Illinois

On February 8, 2024, Willie Preston introduced SB 3440, the Parental Consent for Social Media Act. The bill would have required social media companies who make more than $100 million per year to:

  • perform reasonable age verification by a third party either by a government-issued identification or any commercially reasonable age verification method,
  • obtain parental consent for minor accounts, [224] [225]
  • enforce a curfew of for minors between 10 pm to 6 am Central Standard Time. [225] [224]

It excludes email, direct messaging, streaming services, online shopping or e-commerce, cloud storage, visualization platforms, libraries, or hubs, providing or obtaining technical support for a social media company's platform, products, or services, academic or scholarly research or providing professional news, sports, entertainment, or other content. The bill permits comments on a digital news website, as long as content is posted only by the provider. [224]

The bill had its first reading and was referred to Assignments. [225]

Minor User of Social Media Protection Act (SB 3510)

On February 9, Laura Fine introduced SB 3510, the Minor User of Social Media Protection Act. [225] The bill requires social media platforms with sales greater than $100 million per year to:

  • verify the age of users and if that user is under 13 (a child), obtain parental consent,
  • not use the information of children for targeted advertising
  • enforce a curfew for children between 10 pm - 6 am Central Standard Time. [226]

The bill differs from SB 3440 in that it applies a lower age limit. [224] [226] The bill had its first reading, but did not pass. [225]

Indiana

HB 1314

On January 10, 2024, Johanna King introduced HB 1314 to the House. [227] The bill requires social media services to:

  • verify user ages via a reasonable method,
  • require parental consent for minors after 14 days, [228]
  • not recommend content to minors' accounts or disseminate advertising to them.
  • enforce a curfew for minors from 10:30 pm – 6:30 am Eastern Standard Time.
  • prevent minors from changing or configuring an account. [228]
  • allow a parent to view all account activity, configure the account, and limit the number of daily usage hours. [228]

The bill would be enforced by a private right of action and by the state. [228] The bill died in committee. [229]

SB 11

On January 8, 2025, Mike Bohacek introduced SB 11. [230] [231] The bill requires social media operators to:

  • identify all users,
  • obtain parental consent for users who are under 16 and notify the parent that consent can be revoked,
  • secure and encrypt data collected parental consent. [232]

Each violation would have faced a fine of up to $250,000, plus the cost of the investigation following a 90-day period were the defendant could cure the violation. [232] [233] [234] It would have taken effect on July 1, 2025. [232]

On January 15, the bill passed out of Indiana's Judiciary Committee by a vote of 10–1. [235] The bill passed the Indiana Senate by a vote of 42–7 on January 23. [236] [237]

Iowa

On February 14, 2024, House File 2523 was introduced. [238] The bill requires social media platforms [239] exclusive of interactive gaming, virtual gaming, or online services that allows the creation and uploading of content for the purpose of interactive gaming, educational entertainment, or associated entertainment, and the communication related to such content. [239]

The bill requires social media platforms to:

The bill would be enforced by the state and by a private right of action. [239]

The bill passed the House by a vote of 88–6. The bill died in the Senate. [238] [240] [241]

Kentucky

On February 1, 2024, House Bill 450 was introduced in the Kentucky Legislature. [242]

The bill requires social media platforms exclusive of email, search engines, cloud storage, product review sites, broadband internet services, or services that consists primarily of information or content that is not user-generated [243] to:

The bill would be enforced by the state and by a private right of action. [243]

Michigan

On September 11, 2024, Mark Tisdel, Donni Steele, Tom Kuhn introduced HB 5920 to the Michigan Legislature. [244]

The bill requires social media companies who have at least 5 million accounts to:

The Attorney General (AG) is responsible for establishing rules implementing these requirements, but not limit age verification to a valid government identification card. [245] [246] The bill included a private right of action. [245] [246]

The bill would take effect 180 days after enactment. [245] [246]

Minnesota

On February 24, 2022, HF 3724 was introduced to the House. [247]

It would require social media platforms with at least 1 million users to:

The bill made it through its first and second reading in the House. [250] [251] Enforcement would be by the state of country. [252] [253] [254]

Missouri

On January 2, 2024, Josh Hurlbert Introduced HB 2157 to the House. [255]

The bill requires social media platforms [256] to:

The bill applies to social media platforms, but excludes electronic mail, direct messaging services, streaming service, news, sports, entertainment, or other content that is preselected by the provider and not user-generated, online shopping or e-commerce, Interactive gaming or virtual gaming, photo editing services, a professional creative network made for artistic content, single-purpose community groups for public safety, cloud storage, and document collaboration services, providing access to or interacting with data visualization platforms, libraries, or hubs, providing or obtaining technical support for a platform, product, or service, academic, scholarly, or genealogical research from its definition of social media platform. [256]

It would have directed the Attorney General to establish rules for age verification, establish requirements for retaining, protecting, and securely disposing of information obtained by the age verification process, require that the information from the age verification process is retained for the purpose of compliance and not be used for any other purposes. [256]

The bill was to be enforced by the state and by a private right of action. Violations faces a penalty of $2,500 per violation. [256]

It would have taken effect on July 1, 2025. [256]

Nevada

On November 20, 2024, SB 63 was introduced to the Nevada Legislature. [257]

The bill defines social media platforms as those that allow users to establish an account, and create, share, and view user-generated content. [258] The bill requires platforms to:

The bill would task Nevada Department of Health and Human Services to recommend methods for obtaining parent consent, and assess whether age verification systems are at least 95 percent effective at assessing user ages. [258]

The bill would be enforced by the state and would go into effect October 1, 2025. [258]

New Mexico

On February 2, 2023, SB 319 was introduced in the Senate. [259] The bill requires online service providers that are likely to be accessed by minors to:

Negligent violations would incur fines of not more than $2,500 per affected minor; and fines of not more than $7,500 per affected minor for each intentional violation. Enforcement is via the state. [260] [261]

North Carolina

On April 17, 2023, HB 644, the Social Media Algorithmic Control in IT Act, was introduced in the House. [262]

The bill requires social media platforms hosting over one million users to: [263]

The bill would have established the North Carolina Data Privacy Task Force within the Department of Justice. The bill would have been enforced by state. [263]

The bill died in the legislature. [263]

Oklahoma

Enforcement of this bill is done by the Attorney General of Oklahoma and social media companies will be given 45 days to comply the act before action by the Attorney General of Oklahoma is taken and if they do not comply within 45 days they will face fines of up to $2,500 per violation and be order to pay for court costs, and reasonable attorney fees as ordered by the court; or damages resulting from a minor accessing a social media platform without the consent of the minor's parent or custodian. [264]

The bill later passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives on March 14, 2024, by a vote of 69 - 16. [265] [266] [267]

The bill made it to its second reading in the senate, however died in the senate before being able to be passed. [268]

The bill would have taken effect July 1, 2024, if it had been signed into law. [264]

On February 5, 2024, Chad Caldwell introduced HB 3914 to the House. [269] The bill defines social media platforms as services with annual revenues exceeding $100 million that enable users to create public profiles, establish accounts, and create, upload, or interact with content, excluding subscription-based services focused on gaming, entertainment, email, or cloud storage where social interaction accounts for less than 25% of revenue. [264] The bill mandates that social media platforms:

The state would enforce the bill, with a 45-day compliance period. Non-compliant platforms face fines up to $2,500 per violation, plus court costs, attorney fees, or damages. [264] The bill passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives on March 14, 2024, with a 69–16 vote but failed to pass the Senate. [265] [266] [267]

Oregon

On January 9, 2023, Senator Chris Gorsek introduced SB196 to the Oregon Senate. [270] The bill mandates online businesses likely accessed by children under 18 to:

The bill would have established an Age-Appropriate Design Task Force, comprising eight members with expertise in children's health, legal rights, data privacy, or internet science to study best practices to: [271]

The state would have enforced the bill, imposing fines up to $2,500 per negligent violation and $7,500 per intentional violation. [271] The bill reached the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 13, 2023, but failed to pass. [270] [271]

Pennsylvania

On February 20, 2024, Carolyn Comitta introduced H 2017 to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. [272] The bill mandates social media companies to:

Companies must remove harmful content, enable users to report such content, and allow minors under 18 to opt out of personalized recommendation systems. They cannot use manipulative design tactics, mine data unnecessarily, process geolocation data by default, or permit unknown adults to contact minors without consent. [273] Companies must delete minors' collected personal data upon request within 30 days and notify the minor of deletion within 90 business days. [273]

Rhode Island

On February 5, 2025, Joseph McNamara introduced H 5291 to the General Assembly. [274] The bill mandates social media services with over 5 million users to:

The state enforces the bill. Violators face fines up to $2,500 per violation, enforceable through a private right of action. [274]

South Carolina

On December 5, 2024, Representative Micah Caskey introduced HB 3431 as a prefile for the 126th General Assembly. [15] The bill comprises two sections: Age-Appropriate Design and Social Media Regulation.

Age-appropriate design

Covered social media platforms likely accessed by minors must:

  • Design features to reduce risks of compulsive use, mental health issues (e.g., anxiety, depression, self-harm), privacy intrusions, identity theft, or discrimination,
  • Provide minors with tools to limit time, hide location, or restrict communication,
  • Prevent notifications to minors from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. EST or 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. during August to May,
  • Avoid profiling minors or using manipulative design tactics unless essential,
  • Offer parents tools to manage minor account settings,
  • Publish annual transparency reports by July 1. [86]

Social media regulation

Covered platforms must:

  • Verify user ages, requiring parental consent for those under 18,
  • Prohibit adults from messaging minors directly or targeting them with advertisements,
  • Ban collection of minors’ personal data,
  • Implement policies to block content promoting self-harm or illegal activities,
  • Prevent minors from bypassing restrictions via VPNs or proxies. [86]
  • The South Carolina Department of Education must develop programs to educate students on online safety. [86]

Violations of the Age-Appropriate Design section constitute deceptive practices under South Carolina law. Social Media Regulation violations incur fines up to $2,500 per violation, plus damages for financial, physical, or emotional harm, enforced by the state and a private right of action. [86] On February 20, 2025, the bill passed the House by an 89–14 vote. [275] [276] [277]

South Dakota

In October 2024, lawmakers in South Dakota announced plans on introducing legislation on having age verification and parental consent for minors to access any app on an app store with support around claiming it to be a good approach to social media. [278]

On January 30, 2025, SB 180 was introduced to the South Dakota Legislature. The bill requires app stores to have four age categories: [279]

The bill requires app stores to verify the age of anyone who attempts to download an app. If they are a minor under 18 years of age, they must have parental consent, and their parents with be notified that they are downloading an app from the app store and must not enforce their contract or terms of service against a minor unless they have parental consent. Companies must not knowingly misrepresent information collected from the parental consent process or share age category data.

The bill is enforced by a private right of action. However, an amendment to the bill would make some sections enforceable under Section 37-24-6 of South Dakota code. [280] [281]

A violation under Section 37-24-6 of South Dakota code is a Class 1 misdemeanor if the violation is under $1,000. A Class 1 misdemeanor can carry up to a year in county jail if the violation is over $1,000. If the violation is under $100,000, it is a Class 6 felony, which can carry up to 2 years imprisonment. If the violation is over $100,000, it will result in a Class 5 felony, which can carry up to 5 years imprisonment. [282] [283] The Attorney General of South Dakota can enforce Section 37-24-6 of South Dakota Code. [284]

The bill take effect on January 1, 2026, if enacted into law. [280]

On January 30, 2025, Senator Michael Rohl introduced SB 180 to the South Dakota Legislature. [280] The bill establishes four age categories for app store users (stores must verify user ages): [280]

The bill requires app stores to:

The state enforces violations, alongside a private right of action. Penalties include:

Violations [285] [286] [287]
DamagesTypeMax. sentence
<$1,000Class 1 misdemeanor—
>$1,0001 year in county jail
<$100,000Class 6 felony2 years
>$100,000Class 5 felony5 years

If enacted, the bill takes effect on January 1, 2026. [280]

Washington

On February 4, 2025, Representative Shelley Kloba introduced HB 1834 to the Washington Legislature. [288] The bill mandates social media platforms likely accessed by minors to:

If enacted, the bill would take effect on January 1, 2026. [289] On February 21, 2025, the bill advanced from committee. [290]

Criticism

Groups such as EFF, ACLU and NetChoice have criticized social media age verification laws due to privacy risks, free speech burdens, and ineffective operation. [291] [292] [293] [294]

Summary

StateParental consentParental access to minor accountsProtect user dataAge limitAge verificationLimit minor access to friendsStatusYearIntroducerUsage limits (exclusion from targeting)Prohibit algorithmic content moderation for minorsTime of day restrictions (hours and scope)Allows private right of actionReporting (contents)
AlabamaYYYUnder 16YNProposed2025UnknownYes (no targeting minors)YNoneYNone
AlaskaYNYMinorYNDefeated2024UnknownYes (no targeting minors)Y10:30 PM–6:30 AM (both)YNone
ArizonaNNYUnder 16NNDefeated2024Seth BlattmanYes (no targeting minors)NNoneNNone
ArkansasYNNMinorYNEnjoined2023Unknown (SB 396)NoneNNoneNNone
CaliforniaYNYMinorYNEnjoined2022, 2024Unknown (AB 2273, SB 976)Yes (no addictive feeds without consent)Y12:00 AM–6:00 AM, 8:00 AM–3:00 PM (notifications, Sep–May)NNumber of minor users, parental assents, default settings, time spent
ColoradoNNNNoneYNVetoed2025Unknown (SB 25-086)NoneNNoneNSelected conduct (e.g., illegal sales, false age reporting)
ConnecticutYNYMinorYNEnacted2023Unknown (SB 3)NoneNNoneNNone
ConnecticutYNYMinorYNProposed2025Unknown (HB 6587)NoneY12:00 AM–6:00 AM (notifications)NNumber of users, parental consents, default settings, time spent
FloridaNYNUnder 14YNEnjoined2024Tyler SiroisNoneNNoneNNone
GeorgiaYNYUnder 16YNEnacted2024Unknown (SB 351)Yes (no targeting minors)NNoneNNone
IdahoYNNMinorYNDefeated2024Unknown (SB 1417)NoneNNoneYNone
IllinoisYNYUnder 13YNDefeated2024Willie Preston, Laura FineYes (no targeting children)N10:00 PM–6:00 AM (both)NNone
IndianaYYYUnder 16YNProposed2025Mike BohacekYes (no targeting minors)Y10:30 PM–6:30 AM (both)YNone
IowaYYNMinorYNDefeated2024Unknown (HF 2523)NoneNNoneYNone
KentuckyYYNMinorYNProposed2024Unknown (HB 450)NoneNNoneYNone
LouisianaYYYUnder 16YYEnacted2023Unknown (SB 162, HB 61)Yes (no targeting minors under 16)NNoneNNone
MichiganYYYMinorYYProposed2024Mark Tisdel, Donni Steele, Tom KuhnYes (no targeting minors)Y10:30 PM–6:30 AM (both)YNone
MinnesotaYNNUnder 16NNEnacted2024UnknownNoneYNoneNNone
MississippiYNYMinorYNEnjoined2024Unknown (HB 1126)Yes (no targeting minors)NNoneNNone
MissouriYYYMinorYYProposed2024Josh HurlbertYes (no targeting minors)Y10:30 PM–6:30 AM (both)YNone
NebraskaYYNMinorYNEnacted2025Unknown (LB 383)NoneNNoneYNone
NevadaYNYMinorYNProposed2024Unknown (SB 63)Yes (no targeting minors)Y12:00 AM–6:00 AM, 8:00 AM–3:00 PM (notifications, Sep–May)NNone
New MexicoNNYMinorYNProposed2023Unknown (SB 319)Yes (no targeting minors)NNoneNData protection impact assessments
New YorkYNNMinorYNEnacted2024Unknown (S7694A)Yes (no addictive feeds without consent)Y12:00 AM–6:00 AM (notifications)YNone
North CarolinaNNYMinorYNDefeated2023Unknown (HB 644)Yes (no targeting minors)YNoneNPrivacy policy, compliance certification
OhioYNNUnder 16YNEnjoined2023Unknown (HB 33)NoneNNoneNNone
OhioNNNMinorYNEnacted2025Unknown (HB 96)NoneNNoneNNone
OklahomaYNYMinorYNDefeated2024Chad CaldwellYes (no targeting minors)NNoneYNone
OregonNNYMinorYNDefeated2023Chris GorsekNoneNNoneNData protection impact assessments
PennsylvaniaYYYUnder 16YNProposed2024Carolyn ComittaYes (no targeting minors)YNoneNNone
Rhode IslandYYYMinorYYProposed2025Joseph McNamaraYes (no targeting minors)Y10:30 PM–6:30 AM (both)YNone
South CarolinaYYYMinorYNProposed2024Micah CaskeyYes (no targeting minors)N10:00 PM–6:00 AM, 8:00 AM–3:00 PM (notifications, Aug–May)YAnnual transparency reports
South DakotaYNYMinorYNProposed2025Michael RohlNoneNNoneYNone
TennesseeYYNMinorYNEnacted2024Unknown (HB 1891)NoneNNoneNNone
TexasYNYMinorYNEnacted2023Unknown (HB 18)Yes (no targeting minors)NNoneNNone
UtahYYYMinorYYEnjoined2023Unknown (SB 152, HB 311)Yes (no targeting minors)NNone (originally 10:30 AM–6:30 PM, removed)YNone
VermontNNYMinorYNVetoed2024Unknown (H. 712, S. 289)Yes (no targeting minors)NNoneYData protection impact assessments
VirginiaYNYUnder 16YNEnacted2025Unknown (SB 854)Yes (no targeting minors)NNoneYNone
WashingtonNNYMinorYNProposed2025Shelley KlobaYes (no targeting minors)Y12:00 AM–6:00 AM, 8:00 AM–3:00 PM (notifications)NNone

References

  1. 1 2 "AB 2273- CHAPTERED". leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.
  2. ↑ "California Governor Signs Law Aimed at Protecting Children's Online Privacy". PCMAG. September 16, 2022.
  3. 1 2 Robertson, Adi (September 15, 2022). "Gavin Newsom signs California social media overhaul for minors". The Verge.
  4. 1 2 3 HB 0311
  5. 1 2 3 4 "SB0152". le.utah.gov.
  6. 1 2 "Utah social media law is ambitious, but is it enforceable?". AP News. March 24, 2023.
  7. 1 2 Associated Press (2023-03-24). "Utah's new social media law means children will need approval from parents". NPR. Retrieved 2025-09-13.
  8. 1 2 "A judge has blocked enforcement of an Ohio law limiting kids' use of social media during litigation". AP News. February 12, 2024.
  9. 1 2 Feiner, Lauren (August 16, 2024). "A key part of California's online safety law for kids is still on hold after appeals court ruling". The Verge.
  10. 1 2 Robertson, Adi (September 18, 2023). "Court blocks California's online child safety law". The Verge.
  11. 1 2 "Federal judge temporarily blocks Utah social media law aimed at protecting children". AP News. September 11, 2024.
  12. ↑ Watson, Michelle (September 1, 2023). "Federal judge blocks Arkansas social media age verification law to have gone into effect Friday | CNN Business". CNN.
  13. ↑ "Tennessee lawmakers seek to require parental permission before children join social media". AP News. April 8, 2024.
  14. ↑ "SB 162 Louisiana".
  15. 1 2 3 "Bill Information - House Bill 3431; Session 126". www.scstatehouse.gov.
  16. ↑ "Social media companies may soon have to seek parental consent for children's accounts". NBC4 WCMH-TV. June 12, 2023.
  17. ↑ Bennett, Kayla. "New law in Ohio cracks down on social media use among kids: What to know". USA Today.
  18. 1 2 "SB396 as engrossed on 04-04-2023 10:19:13" (PDF).
  19. ↑ SB396 Bill Information - Arkansas State Legislature
  20. 1 2 Fung, Brian (April 12, 2023). "Arkansas governor signs sweeping bill imposing a minimum age limit for social media usage | CNN Business". CNN.
  21. ↑ Weatherbed, Jess (April 13, 2023). "Arkansas bill to keep minors off social media makes no sense". The Verge.
  22. ↑ DMM, Adam Roberts (June 30, 2023). "Tech group sues Arkansas over law requiring parental OK for minors creating social media accounts". KHBS.
  23. ↑ "NetChoice-v-Griffin_-Complaint_2023-06-29.pdf" (PDF).
  24. ↑ "NetChoice v. Griffin".
  25. ↑ "gov.uscourts.arwd.68680.31.0.pdf" (PDF).
  26. ↑ "NetChoice_Griffin_Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction_July-7-2023.pdf" (PDF).
  27. ↑ "Tony Allen brief in opposition 7/27/2023" (PDF).
  28. ↑ "Tim Griffin 2023/7/27" (PDF).
  29. ↑ Andrew Demillo (August 31, 2023). "Federal judge blocks Arkansas law requiring parental consent for minors to join social media".
  30. ↑ "Judge blocks Arkansas law requiring parental OK for minors to create social media accounts". AP News. August 31, 2023.
  31. ↑ "Memorandum Opinion and Order" (PDF).
  32. ↑ "Bill History - AB-2273 The California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act". leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.
  33. ↑ Cannestra, Sakura (September 15, 2022). "Newsom signs bill to make tech companies protect kids online". Politico.
  34. ↑ "AB 2273: Veto Request Letter". Electronic Frontier Foundation. September 13, 2023.
  35. ↑ "NetChoice-v-Bonta_-Official-AB-2273-Complaint-final.pdf" (PDF).
  36. ↑ Stempel, Jonathan (19 September 2023). "Judge blocks California law meant to protect children's online safety | Reuters". Reuters.
  37. ↑ "Judge blocks California law meant to increase online safety for kids". The Washington Post. 2023-09-18. ISSN   0190-8286 . Retrieved 2025-09-17.
  38. ↑ "Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction" (PDF).
  39. ↑ Stempel, Jonathan (17 August 2024). "Court blocks key part of California law on children's online safety | Reuters". Reuters.
  40. ↑ "gov.uscourts.ca9.618ad422-a2c1-4e13-9573-1f9a922ea055.121.1.pdf" (PDF).
  41. ↑ "23-2969.pdf" (PDF).
  42. ↑ "Bill History - SB-976 Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act". leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.
  43. ↑ "California governor signs law to protect children from social media addiction". AP News. September 21, 2024.
  44. ↑ Shelton, Shania (September 21, 2024). "Newsom signs bill to regulate social media use among children | CNN Politics". CNN.
  45. ↑ "California Legislative Information". leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.
  46. ↑ "2024-11-12-NetChoice-v-Bonta-2024-Complaint-FILED.pdf" (PDF).
  47. ↑ "MSN". www.msn.com.
  48. ↑ "NetChoice Sues to Bar California Social Media Addiction Law (1)". 12 November 2024.
  49. ↑ "NetChoice v. Bonta, 5:24-cv-07885 - CourtListener.com". CourtListener.
  50. 1 2 "gov.uscourts.cand.439166.39.0.pdf" (PDF).
  51. ↑ "Judge Upholds California's Ban on Addictive Feeds for Minors". PCMAG. January 1, 2025.
  52. ↑ "gov.uscourts.cand.439166.42.0.pdf" (PDF).
  53. ↑ "gov.uscourts.cand.439166.43.0.pdf" (PDF).
  54. ↑ "gov.uscourts.cand.439166.44.0.pdf" (PDF).
  55. ↑ "gov.uscourts.cand.439166.47.0.pdf" (PDF).
  56. ↑ "NetChoice, LLC v. Bonta (0:24-cv-07879), Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals". www.pacermonitor.com.
  57. ↑ Florida • •, News Service of (January 24, 2024). "Florida House passes HB 1 to ban kids 16 and under from having social media accounts".
  58. ↑ "House Bill 1 (2024) - The Florida Senate". www.flsenate.gov.
  59. ↑ "HouseVote_h00001e1552.PDF The Florida House of Representatives. 2024 Regular Session Time Third Reading" (PDF).
  60. ↑ "ACLU of Florida Condemns House Passage of Social Media Censorship Bill | ACLU of Florida | We defend the civil rights and civil liberties of all people in Florida, by working through the legislature, the courts and in the streets". www.aclufl.org. January 24, 2024.
  61. ↑ "Governor Ron DeSantis | Executive Office of the Governor". www.flgov.com. Retrieved 2025-09-17.
  62. ↑ "DeSantis vetoes bill that would ban social media for children 16 and under - CBS Miami". www.cbsnews.com. March 1, 2024.
  63. ↑ Fung, Shawn Nottingham, Brian (March 25, 2024). "Florida governor signs law restricting social media access for children | CNN Business". CNN.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  64. ↑ "Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signs bill that bans children under 14 from having social media accounts". NBC News. March 25, 2024.
  65. ↑ Doffman, Zak. "Porn Ban—New Threat For iPhone, iPad, Android Users". Forbes.
  66. ↑ "CCIA and Netchoice HB3 Complaint.docx" (PDF).
  67. ↑ "Computer & Communications Industry Association v. Uthmeier, 4:24-cv-00438 - CourtListener.com". CourtListener.
  68. ↑ "Internet groups sue Florida over social media law". Tampa Bay Times.
  69. ↑ "Federal judge appears skeptical of Florida law trying to keep minors off social media". March 1, 2025.
  70. ↑ Anderson, Lee Ann. "Federal judge skeptical of Florida's attempt to ban social media for young teenagers". Panama City News Herald.
  71. ↑ Florida, Fresh Take (February 28, 2025). "Judge says 'hard row to hoe' for Florida to justify social media ban for young teens".
  72. ↑ "Denying motion for Preliminary Injunction CCIA et al v. Uthemier" (PDF).
  73. ↑ Pickett, Alex. "Judge halts Florida's social media ban for minors". www.courthousenews.com.
  74. ↑ Team, FOX 5 Atlanta Digital (April 24, 2024). "Kemp signs bill requiring kids to have parental permission to join social media". FOX 5 Atlanta.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  75. ↑ "Georgia General Assembly". www.legis.ga.gov.
  76. ↑ "Georgia joins states seeking parental permission before children join social media". AP News. March 29, 2024.
  77. ↑ Barker, A. C. (April 4, 2024). "Georgia eyes parental consent for kids' social media use: Could this hinder the classroom?". WTVC.
  78. ↑ "GA SB 351_Veto Request" (PDF).
  79. ↑ Chavez, Krista (April 23, 2024). "Gov. Kemp Signs New Law Jeopardizing Georgians' Security & Freedom Online".
  80. ↑ "SB 351 - PROTECTING GEORGIA'S CHILDREN ON SOCIAL MEDIA ACT OF 2024". ACLU of Georgia. March 7, 2024.
  81. ↑ Press, JEFF AMY Associated (May 1, 2025). "Georgia is the 8th state sued over age verification for children on websites". KRCG.
  82. ↑ "SB162". www.legis.la.gov.
  83. ↑ "New Louisiana law will require kids under 16 get parent approval to access social media". July 3, 2023.
  84. ↑ "Louisiana Enacts Law Regulating Social Media Use for Minors | Practical Law".
  85. 1 2 "SB 162 bill text".
  86. 1 2 3 4 5 "2025-2026 Bill 3431: South Carolina Social Media Regulation Act - South Carolina Legislature Online". www.scstatehouse.gov.
  87. ↑ "HB577". www.legis.la.gov.
  88. ↑ "HB 577 text".
  89. ↑ "NetChoice Challenges Louisiana Social Media Age Verification Law". March 18, 2025.
  90. ↑ "HB 61 Bill Text".
  91. ↑ Kelly, Makena (June 8, 2023). "Louisiana passes bill banning kids from the internet without parental consent". The Verge.
  92. ↑ "HB61". www.legis.la.gov.
  93. ↑ Feiner, Lauren (June 8, 2023). "Louisiana law would require parental permission to use social media". CNBC.
  94. ↑ Chavez, Krista (June 8, 2023). "Gov. Edwards Should Veto Unconstitutional Age Verification Bill in Louisiana".
  95. ↑ "Testimony re: HB 61 & SB 161 relating to Social Media Age Verification" (PDF).
  96. ↑ "HB 1126 - History of Actions".
  97. 1 2 3 "HB1126 (As Sent to Governor) - 2024 Regular Session". billstatus.ls.state.ms.us.
  98. ↑ "NetChoice v. Flitch complaint" (PDF).
  99. ↑ "NetChoice v. Fitch - EFF amicus brief". Electronic Frontier Foundation. June 27, 2024.
  100. ↑ "Mississippi Opposition brief NetChoice v. Flitch June 18, 2024" (PDF).
  101. ↑ "NetChoice-Reply-ISO-PI-Motion_MS.pdf" (PDF).
  102. ↑ "gov.uscourts.mssd.125118.30.0.pdf" (PDF).
  103. ↑ Feiner, Lauren (July 2, 2024). "Judge blocks Mississippi law that required age verification on social media". The Verge.
  104. ↑ Raymond, Nate (2 July 2024). "Mississippi law restricting children's social media use blocked". Reuters.
  105. ↑ "Federal judge halts Mississippi law requiring age verification for websites". AP News. July 1, 2024.
  106. ↑ "NetChoice v. Fitch, 24-60341 - CourtListener.com". CourtListener.
  107. ↑ "24-60341-CV0.pdf" (PDF).
  108. ↑ "Nebraska passes bill requiring age verification for social media". northeast.newschannelnebraska.com.
  109. ↑ Wendling, Zach (May 14, 2025). "Nebraska social media limits, lab-grown meat ban, domestic abuse survivor help, 28 more bills pass • Nebraska Examiner".
  110. ↑ Fung, Brian (June 20, 2024). "New York governor signs bill regulating social media algorithms, in a US first | CNN Business". CNN.
  111. 1 2 "New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signs bill targeting addictive social media platforms: "Our kids are in distress" - CBS News". www.cbsnews.com. June 20, 2024.
  112. ↑ "NY State Senate Bill 2023-S7694A". www.nysenate.gov.
  113. 1 2 "S7694A Bill Text".
  114. ↑ Chavez, Krista (June 20, 2024). "NetChoice Condemns New York's New Unconstitutional Internet Censorship Law".
  115. ↑ "EFF comments to NY AG on SAFE for Kids (Sept. 2024)". Electronic Frontier Foundation. October 15, 2024.
  116. ↑ Tsukayama, Hayley (October 15, 2024). "EFF to New York: Age Verification Threatens Everyone's Speech and Privacy". Electronic Frontier Foundation.
  117. ↑ HB 33 Text Section Section.1349.09.
  118. ↑ "Parents respond to social media consent law".
  119. ↑ "Section 1349.09 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws". codes.ohio.gov.
  120. ↑ "House Bill 33 | 135th General Assembly | Ohio Legislature". www.legislature.ohio.gov.
  121. ↑ "Ohio leaders discuss Social Media Parental Notification Act included in State Budget". 10tv.com. June 12, 2023.
  122. ↑ "NetChoice Ohio - Complaint FINAL" (PDF).
  123. ↑ Fung, Brian (January 10, 2024). "Federal judge pauses Ohio social media law requiring parental consent for kids' accounts | CNN Business". CNN.
  124. ↑ Keagy, Kimberly (January 9, 2024). "Ohio's social media parental law blocked by judge". www.wsaz.com.
  125. ↑ "Microsoft Word - 2024 01 9 NetChoice TRO OO.docx" (PDF).
  126. ↑ "Jon Husted opposition brief to NetChoice v. Yost" (PDF).
  127. ↑ "reply brief NetChoice January 26, 2024" (PDF).
  128. ↑ "gov.uscourts.ohsd.287455.30.0.pdf" (PDF).
  129. ↑ "gov.uscourts.ohsd.287455.32.0.pdf" (PDF).
  130. ↑ Cross, Ian; Press, Associated (February 12, 2024). "Judge blocks Ohio law requiring parental consent for teen social media use". News 5 Cleveland WEWS.
  131. ↑ Fung, Brian (February 13, 2024). "Federal judge blocks Ohio law regulating kids' access to social media | CNN Business". CNN.
  132. ↑ "2024 02 09 NetChoice PI OO.docx" (PDF).
  133. ↑ Trau, Morgan (14 July 2025). "Porn will get harder to watch in Ohio soon". WCPO 9 Cincinnati. Retrieved 12 September 2025.
  134. ↑ Gideon, Vic (7 August 2025). "Accessing adult content in Ohio gets harder next month". cleveland19.com. Retrieved 12 September 2025.
  135. ↑ "An Act, Am. Sub. H. B. No. 96" (pdf). Ohio. p. 655. Retrieved 12 September 2025.
  136. ↑ "House Bill 96 | 136th General Assembly | Ohio Legislature". legislature.ohio.gov. Retrieved 12 September 2025.
  137. ↑ "Tennessee General Assembly Legislation". wapp.capitol.tn.gov.
  138. ↑ Staff, WZTV (May 3, 2024). "Tennessee governor signs bill requiring parental consent for child's social media use". WTVC.
  139. ↑ "Social Media Restrictions for Teens Signed Into Law in Tennessee". 2 May 2024.
  140. ↑ "Gov. Bill Lee signs social media age verification bill into law". May 3, 2024.
  141. ↑ "HB1891.pdf" (PDF).
  142. ↑ "NetChoice-v.-Skrmetti_Tennessee_Complaint_FINAL_Oct-3-2024.pdf" (PDF).
  143. ↑ "NetChoice MISO Motion for Prelim Injunction.docx" (PDF).
  144. ↑ "Tech Group Netchoice Targets Tennessee Kids' Social Media Law (1)". 3 October 2024.
  145. ↑ "NetChoice v. Skrmetti, 3:24-cv-01191 - CourtListener.com". CourtListener.
  146. ↑ "NetChoice v. Skrmetti (3:24-cv-01191), Tennessee Middle District Court". www.pacermonitor.com.
  147. ↑ "Monday, May 29, 2023 — 75th Day" (PDF).
  148. ↑ "Texas Legislature Online - 88(R) History for HB 18". capitol.texas.gov.
  149. ↑ Kelly, Makena (June 14, 2023). "Texas bans kids from social media without parental consent". The Verge.
  150. ↑ Belanger, Ashley (June 15, 2023). "Texas will require parental consent for kids to use social media". Ars Technica.
  151. 1 2 3 "88(R) HB 18 - Senate Committee Report version - Bill Text". capitol.texas.gov.
  152. ↑ "TX Gov. Signs Social Media Parental Control Bill: HB18 threatens to censor LGBTQ content - Chamber of Progress". June 13, 2023.
  153. ↑ "HB-18-Complaint_As-Filed.pdf" (PDF).
  154. ↑ "Complaint - Students Engaged in Advancing Texas v. Paxton | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression". www.thefire.org.
  155. ↑ "2024-08-30-Order-Granting-In-dckt-25_0.pdf" (PDF).
  156. ↑ Dial, Steven (September 2, 2024). "New Texas law requires parental approval for child social media accounts". FOX 4.
  157. ↑ "Judge allows parental consent for Texas kids' social media accounts, but blocks content moderation requirement". wfaa.com. September 1, 2024.
  158. ↑ Robertson, Adi (September 2, 2024). "Social networks can't be forced to filter content for kids, says judge". The Verge.
  159. ↑ "NetChoice-v-Reyes_Official-Complaint_FINAL-Filed.pdf" (PDF).
  160. ↑ "NetChoice-v.-Reyes-PI-Motion.pdf" (PDF).
  161. ↑ "Tech industry group sues Utah over its social media regulations".
  162. ↑ "NetChoice challenges Utah Social Media Regulation Act in lawsuit". Deseret News. December 19, 2023.
  163. ↑ "Attorneys' Planning Meeting Report" (PDF).
  164. ↑ "SB0194". le.utah.gov.
  165. ↑ "HB0464". le.utah.gov.
  166. ↑ https://netchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/NetChoice-v-Reyes-MOTION-for-Prelimary-Injunction.2024.05.03-ECF-52-pdf%5B%5D
  167. ↑ "NetChoice files updated complaint against Utah social media law". Deseret News. May 3, 2024.
  168. ↑ "2024.05.31-ECF-59-MTD-Def.-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" (PDF).
  169. ↑ "v3 223cv00911 Order gtg MTD" (PDF).
  170. ↑ "Utah secures a significant legal victory in bigger lawsuit battle". Deseret News. July 23, 2024.
  171. ↑ "NetChoice-v-Reyes-2024.09.10-ECF-86-ORDER-Granting-PI.pdf" (PDF).
  172. ↑ "Judge blocks Utah social media age-verification law". thehill.com. 2024-12-09.
  173. ↑ "Utah's social media law put on hold by federal judge as lawsuits continue". September 11, 2024.
  174. ↑ "NetChoice v. Reyes, et al". Justia Dockets & Filings.
  175. ↑ "Attorneys' Planning Meeting Report 10/18/2024" (PDF).
  176. ↑ "Virginia bill to limit social media usage for kids signed into law". wusa9.com. May 2, 2025.
  177. ↑ "SB854ER - 2025 Regular Session | LIS".
  178. ↑ "Code of Virginia Code - Chapter 53. Consumer Data Protection Act". law.lis.virginia.gov.
  179. ↑ "§ 59.1-584. Enforcement; civil penalty; expenses". law.lis.virginia.gov.
  180. ↑ "SB854S1 - 2025 Regular Session | LIS".
  181. ↑ "Protections for Users of Social Media".
  182. ↑ "SB 25-086 text" (PDF).
  183. ↑ "SB25-086_vote_5AAC04 | Colorado General Assembly". leg.colorado.gov.
  184. ↑ "SB25-086_vote_64FF1F | Colorado General Assembly". leg.colorado.gov.
  185. ↑ Radio, Jesse Paul, Bente Birkeland, Colorado Public (April 25, 2025). "Colorado Senate overrides Jared Polis' veto of bill regulating social media in extremely rare rebuke of governor".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  186. ↑ "Polis' veto on social media bill stands after lawmakers failed to override". FOX31 Denver. 29 April 2025.
  187. ↑ Paul, Jesse; Sun ·, The Colorado (April 28, 2025). "Colorado legislature declines to override Gov. Jared Polis' veto of social media bill". Colorado Public Radio.
  188. ↑ "Bill Status H.712". legislature.vermont.gov.
  189. 1 2 3 4 "H-0712 As Introduced.pdf" (PDF).
  190. ↑ "Bill Status S.289". legislature.vermont.gov.
  191. ↑ "Roll Call S.289". legislature.vermont.gov.
  192. ↑ "Senate Bill 289 roll call (2)" (PDF).
  193. ↑ Kinzel, Bob (March 19, 2024). "Bill requiring safeguards for kids online passes in Vermont Senate". Vermont Public.
  194. ↑ "H.121 - Veto Letter | Office of Governor Phil Scott". governor.vermont.gov.
  195. ↑ "Request Rejected" (PDF).
  196. ↑ "Roll Call H.121". legislature.vermont.gov.
  197. 1 2 "Alabama house proposes bill banning children from using social media". February 8, 2025.
  198. 1 2 3 4 5 "HB235-int.pdf" (PDF).
  199. ↑ "2018 Code of Alabama :: Title 8 - Commercial Law and Consumer Protection. :: Chapter 19 - Deceptive Trade Practices. :: Section 8-19-12 - Violations". Justia Law.
  200. ↑ "2024 Code of Alabama :: Title 13A - Criminal Code. :: Chapter 5 - Punishments and Sentences. :: Article 1 - General Provisions. :: Section 13A-5-7 - Sentences of Imprisonment for Misdemeanors and Violations". Justia Law.
  201. 1 2 "Alaska State Legislature". www.akleg.gov.
  202. 1 2 3 4 5 "HB0271A.DOC" (PDF).
  203. 1 2 3 4 5 "Alaska State Legislature". www.akleg.gov.
  204. ↑ "Alaska State Legislature". www.akleg.gov.
  205. ↑ "R Street Testimony in Opposition to the Alaska Social Media Regulation Act".
  206. ↑ "Bill Status Inquiry". apps.azleg.gov.
  207. 1 2 3 "HB2858P.docx" (PDF).
  208. 1 2 3 "HB2858H.1.docx" (PDF).
  209. 1 2 3 "H.HB2858_022724_HOUSEENGROSSED.pdf" (PDF).
  210. 1 2 "H.HB2858_021624_APPROP.pdf" (PDF).
  211. ↑ "Arizona Republicans back bill to require age verification for pornography websites". ktar.com.
  212. ↑ "Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs signs HB2112 into law". kyma.com.
  213. ↑ "CHAPTER 193 HOUSE BILL 2112". azleg.gov.
  214. 1 2 3 "HOUSE BILL 2112" (PDF). azleg.gov.
  215. 1 2 3 "HB 2112: internet pornography; minors; age verification". azleg.gov.
  216. 1 2 "Connecticut General Assembly". Connecticut General Assembly. Archived from the original on 2025-08-08. Retrieved 2025-09-15.
  217. ↑ 2025HB-06857-R000210-Tong, William, Attorney General-Office of the Attorney General-Supports-TMY.PDF
  218. 1 2 3 4 Text of HB-06857
  219. ↑ Savino • •, Mike (February 10, 2025). "Lawmakers mull parental controls for social media".
  220. ↑ Dixon, Ken. "CT could put restriction on hours for when kids can use social media". New Haven Register.
  221. 1 2 "SENATE BILL 1417 – Idaho State Legislature".
  222. 1 2 3 "PDFs". legislature.idaho.gov.
  223. 1 2 3 "SENATE BILL NO.1417 (2024) - Parental rights in social media act" (PDF).
  224. 1 2 3 4 "Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of SB3440". www.ilga.gov.
  225. 1 2 3 4 5 Systeme, Legislative Information (June 14, 2024). "Official Government Website of the Illinois General Assembly". ilga.gov.
  226. 1 2 "Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of SB3510". www.ilga.gov.
  227. ↑ "Indiana General Assembly". iga.in.gov.
  228. 1 2 3 4 "Indiana General Assembly" (PDF).
  229. ↑ "Indiana General Assembly". iga.in.gov.
  230. ↑ Gonzalez, Griffin (January 8, 2025). "Proposed bill could put an age limit on social media access for Hoosier youth". WRTV Indianapolis.
  231. ↑ "Indiana General Assembly". iga.in.gov.
  232. 1 2 3 "Indiana General Assembly" (PDF).
  233. ↑ "Indiana General Assembly" (PDF).
  234. ↑ "Indiana General Assembly" (PDF).
  235. ↑ "Indiana General Assembly" (PDF).
  236. ↑ dan.carden@nwi.com, 219-933-3357, Dan Carden (January 23, 2025). "Indiana senators OK parental permission mandate for social media use by kids under 16". nwitimes.com.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  237. ↑ "Indiana General Assembly" (PDF).
  238. 1 2 "Iowa Legislature - Bill History".
  239. 1 2 3 4 5 "Iowa Legislature - BillBook".
  240. ↑ "Wayback Machine" (PDF). www.legis.iowa.gov.
  241. ↑ "03-11-2024" (PDF).
  242. ↑ "24RS HB 450". apps.legislature.ky.gov.
  243. 1 2 3 4 "Wayback Machine" (PDF). apps.legislature.ky.gov.
  244. ↑ "House Bill 5920 of 2024 - Michigan Legislature". www.legislature.mi.gov.
  245. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "2024-HIB-5920.pdf" (PDF).
  246. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Text of HIB-5920
  247. ↑ "HF 3724 Status in the House for the 92nd Legislature (2021 - 2022)". www.revisor.mn.gov.
  248. ↑ "HF 3724 as introduced - 92nd Legislature (2021 - 2022)". www.revisor.mn.gov.
  249. ↑ "HF 3724 1st Engrossment - 92nd Legislature (2021 - 2022)". www.revisor.mn.gov.
  250. ↑ "House Journal 70th Day Thursday February 24 2022". www.house.mn.gov.
  251. ↑ "House Journal 83rd Day Monday March 28 2022". www.house.mn.gov.
  252. ↑ "Journal of the House - 102nd Day - Wednesday, May 4, 2022". www.house.mn.gov.
  253. ↑ "Sec. 325F.6945 MN Statutes". www.revisor.mn.gov.
  254. ↑ "Sec. 45.027 MN Statutes". www.revisor.mn.gov.
  255. ↑ "Missouri House of Representatives - Bill Information for HB2157". house.mo.gov.
  256. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 "HB 2157 2024 Missouri" (PDF).
  257. ↑ "SB63 Overview". www.leg.state.nv.us.
  258. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "SB63 Text". www.leg.state.nv.us.
  259. ↑ "Legislation - New Mexico Legislature". www.nmlegis.gov.
  260. 1 2 "SB0319" (PDF).
  261. 1 2 "SB0319".
  262. ↑ "House Bill 644 (2023-2024 Session) - North Carolina General Assembly". www.ncleg.gov.
  263. 1 2 3 "H644v2.pdf" (PDF).
  264. 1 2 3 4 5 "HB3914 ENGR.PDF" (PDF).
  265. 1 2 "House Votes".
  266. 1 2 "Oklahoma House passes bill requiring age restriction on social media accounts". 17 March 2024.
  267. 1 2 "Social Media Age-Limit Bill Passes House". Oklahoma House of Representatives.
  268. ↑ "Bill Information". www.oklegislature.gov.
  269. ↑ "Bill Information". www.oklegislature.gov.
  270. 1 2 "Oregon Legislative Information System". olis.oregonlegislature.gov.
  271. 1 2 3 4 "SB0196".
  272. ↑ "Bill Information (History) - House Bill 2017; Regular Session 2023-2024". www.legis.state.pa.us.
  273. 1 2 3 "H 2017 Pennsylvania".
  274. 1 2 3 4 5 "H5291.pdf" (PDF).
  275. ↑ "House Vote Record".
  276. ↑ "SC House Passes Social Media Restrictions for Minors". February 21, 2025.
  277. ↑ "House Approves HB 3431". South Carolina General Assembly.
  278. ↑ Hult, John (October 3, 2024). "Lawmaker panel set to back app store and device-based age verification for minors • South Dakota Searchlight".
  279. ↑ "Loading..." South Dakota Legislature.
  280. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "SB 180". South Dakota Legislature.
  281. ↑ "2025 Senate Bill 180 - SD Legislature to require age verification before an individual may access an application from an online application store amendment" (PDF).
  282. ↑ "Loading..." South Dakota Legislature.
  283. ↑ "Loading..." South Dakota Legislature.
  284. ↑ "Loading..." South Dakota Legislature.
  285. ↑ "Section 37-24-6". South Dakota Legislature.
  286. ↑ "Section 22-6-2". South Dakota Legislature.
  287. ↑ "Section 37-24-12". South Dakota Legislature.
  288. ↑ "HB 1834". app.leg.wa.gov.
  289. 1 2 "1834-S.pdf" (PDF).
  290. ↑ James, Albert (February 21, 2025). "Washington Senate panel advances age-based social media restrictions". Washington State Standard.
  291. ↑ Schwartz, Jason Kelley and Adam (March 10, 2023). "Age Verification Mandates Would Undermine Anonymity Online". Electronic Frontier Foundation.
  292. ↑ Chavez, Krista (March 21, 2023). "What Would Legally-Mandated Age Verification on the Internet Actually Look Like in Practice?". NetChoice.
  293. ↑ Moraff, Vera Eidelman, Laura (August 1, 2023). "Arkansas Wants to Unconstitutionally "Card" People Before They Use Social Media | ACLU".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  294. ↑ "Experts: Here's Why Age-Verification Rules for Social Media Won't Work". PCMAG. April 10, 2024.
  295. ↑ "Experts: Here's Why Age-Verification Rules for Social Media Won't Work". PCMAG. April 10, 2024.
  296. 1 2 "Age Verification: The Complicated Effort to Protect Youth Online". New America.
  297. 1 2 Quinlan, Keely (April 23, 2024). "States' online age verification requirements may bear more risks than benefits, report says".
  298. 1 2 "Age verification for social media: Do kids and parents even want it? - The University of Sydney".
  299. ↑ "The Fundamental Problems with Social Media Age-Verification Legislation". R Street Institute. Retrieved 2025-09-17.
  300. 1 2 3 Buckley, Molly (December 31, 2024). "Fighting Online ID Mandates: 2024 In Review". Electronic Frontier Foundation.
  301. ↑ Leffer, Lauren. "Online Age Verification Laws Could Do More Harm Than Good". Scientific American. Retrieved 2025-09-17.
  302. ↑ "Should There By Social Media Age Restrictions?". June 19, 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.