Social Media Age Verification Laws In The United States

In 2022 California passed The California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act or AB 2273 which requires websites that are likely to be used by minors to estimate visitors ages to give them some amount of privacy control and on March 23, 2023, Utah Governor Spencer Cox signed SB 152 and HB 311 collective known as the Utah Social Media Regulation Act which requires age verification and if they are under 18 they have to get parental consent before making an account on any social media platform.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]} Since then multiple bills have been introduced or passed in multiple states however very few gone into effect mainly due to court challenges including both laws in California and Utah.^{[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]}

Many, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union and NetChoice, have criticized social media age verification laws because of the risk that they pose to privacy and having a burden on free speech as well as being ineffective.^{[21][22][23][24]}

On April 11, 2023, The Governor of Arkansas Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed SB 396 also known as The Social Media Safety Act. The law requires certain social media that make over 100 million dollars per year to verify the age of new users by a third party and if that user is under 18 years of age, they must have parental consent before being an account holder. It excludes platforms that social media company that allows a user to generate short video clips as well as interactive and virtual games.^[20][18] The law was set to go in effect in September 2023 and is enforced by the attorney general of Arkansas.^[25]

On June 29, 2023 The Trade Association NetChoice sued the Attorney General of Arkansas Tim Griffin and was case was in The Western District Court of Arkansas to block him from being able to enforce the law.^[26][27] Later on July 7, 2023, NetChoice would file its motion for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the law.^[28] The American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Fontier Foundation would file a brief in the lawsuit in support of NetChoice.^[29][30] On July 27, 2023, Tim Griffin and Tony Allen would file briefs in opposition to the preliminary injunction.^[31][32] A hearing for the preliminary injunction would be held on August 15, 2023, the judge for the hearing was Timothy L. Brooks.^[33] The Preliminary Injunction was later granted by Judge Timothy L. Brooks on August 31, 2023 with his reasoning being that the law was too vague and that Netchoice's members will suffer irreparable harm if the act goes into effect and that age restrictions were ineffective.^[34][35][36]

On September 15, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 2273 also known as The California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act or CAADCA.^[37][38][7] The most controversial parts of the law were that it requires online services that are likely to be used by children which is defined as anyone under 18 years of age to estimate the age of child users with a "reasonable level of certainty". It also requires theses online services to fill out Data Protection Impact Assessments or DPIAs to the attorney general of California with one of the DPIA requirements being wither or not an online product, service, or feature could harm children, including by exposing children to harmful, or potentially harmful, content on the online product, service, or feature. the law doesn't define what content is harmful or potentially harmful to minors.^[5] Before the law took effect the Electronic Fontier Foundation sent a veto request to Gavin Newsom against him to veto the bill before it became law.^[39]

On December 14, 2022 NetChoice would file a lawsuit against Rob Bonta who is the attorney general of California to The District Court for the Northern District of California.^[40] After this on September 18, 2023, Federal Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted a preliminary injunction against the law blocking it from taking effect.^{[41][42][10][43]} The law was appealed to the 9th Circuit on October 23, 2023.^[44] The 9th Circuit would later on August 16, 2024, affirm the injunction against the DPIA section of the law and would send the rest of the law back down to the district court because the argument in the 9th circuit was mainly focused on the DPIA and not sections of the law such as its "dark patterns" section.^{[45][9][46][47]}

On September 20, 2024, Gavin Newsom signed SB 976 or Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act.^[48][49] The law requires online platforms to not give anyone under 18 years of age an "addictive" feed unless they have verified parental consent. It also requires online platforms to not send notifications to someone under 18 between 12:00 am and 6:00 am any day without parental consent or between 8:00 am – 3:00 pm without parental consent between the months of September and May, however the law doesn't define what a "notification" is. The law's rule making and enforcement is by The attorney general of California and is set to take effect on January 1, 2027.^[50][51]

On November 12, 2024 the trade association NetChoice sued the California Attorney General Rob Bonta to block SB 976 from taking effect. The case is in the Northern District Court of California and the Judge for the case is Edward John Davila.^{[52][53][54][55]}

On January 5, 2024, Tylor Sirois would introduce HB 1 which would ban anyone under 16 from using any social media platform and would require platforms to verify the age of users to make sure they weren't under 16.^[56][57] Right after the bill passed the Florida State House The American Civil Liberties Union would make a blog post being in opposition to the bill claiming the bill violates the rights of minor and adults.^[58][59] The law would later be vetoed by the governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on March 1, 2024, claiming that the State Legislature was going to enact a "superior" bill to HB 1.^[60][61] The "superior" Bill was HB 3 which decreased the minimum age from 16 to 14 and allowed minors aged 14 and 15 to make social media accounts with parental consent it later signed on March 25, 2024, and is expected to make effect in January 2025.^[62][63]

On October 28, 2024, The Trade Associations NetChoice and Computer and Communications Industry Association would file a lawsuit against the law. The Judge for the case is Mark E. Walker.^[64][65][66]

Oral Argument for the case challenging HB 3 will take place on either February 27 or 28, 2025.^[67]

On April 23, 2024, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed SB 351 into law which became Act 463 after signing it.^[68][69] Act 463 requires platforms to verify the age of users of social media platforms and if that user is under 16 years of age that must have parental consent before making an account, it also requires schools to ban all social media platforms including YouTube.^[70][71] Before the law was signed The Trade Association NetChoice would send a veto request to The Governor of Georgia claiming the law was unconstitutional and was bad policy.^[72] After the bill was signed the American Civil Liberties Union and NetChoice criticized the bill.^[73][74]

On June 28, 2023, John Bel Edwards signed SB 162 also known as the Secure Online Child Interaction and Age Limitation Act.^[75] It requires social media platforms to verify the age of users and if that user is under 16 to get parental consent before they can be an account holder and prohibits account holders under 16 from messaging adults on the service unless they are already connected, and prohibits the display of advertising based on user data and the collection of unneccessary personal information. A parent or guardian of a user under 16 is permitted to monitor the child's account.^[15][76][77]

The bill excludes online email, video games, streaming services, news, sports, and entertainment as long as the content isn't user generated. The bill is enforced and guided by the Department of Justice of Louisiana and it took effect on July 1, 2024.^[15][76][77]

on June 28, 2023, John Bel Edwards signed HB 61 the same day he signed SB 162 the law requires parental consent for anyone under 18 before making an account on an "interactive computer service" and it took effect on August 1, 2024.^{[78][79][80][81]}

NetChoice would make a testimony being in opposition against both laws and would send a veto request for HB 61, however they have yet to sue the state of Louisiana over them.^[82][83]

On April 30, 2024, Tate Reeves who is the Governor of Mississippi signed HB 1126 also known as The Walker Montgomery Protecting Children Online Act.^[84]

Section 4 of the law requires "digital service providers" to make a commercially reasonable effort to verify the age of anyone who wants to make an account in the state of Mississippi and if that user is under 18, they must have consent from a parent or guardian.^[85]

Section 5 of the law requires digital service providers to limit collection of the known minor's personal data, collect a minor's geolocation data, or display targeted advertising not suitable for minors.^[85]

Section 6 of the law requires digital service providers to "prevent and mitigate" the posting of harmful content about issues such as eating disorders and substance abuse as well as any illegal activity.^[85]

On June 7, 2024, The Trade Association NetChoice sued the Attorney General of Mississippi Lynn Flitch to the Southern District Court of Mississippi to block her from being able to enforce the law before it took effect on July 1 of the same year.^[86] On June 18, 2024 The Electronic Fontier Foundation filed a brief in the case in favor of NetChoice for a Preliminary Injunction.^[87] The state of Mississippi would file its brief in opposition to NetChoice's motion for a Preliminary Injunction on June 18, 2024, the same day when the Electronic Fontier Foundation filed its brief in support of NetChoice.^[88] On June 21, 2024, NetChoice filed its reply brief to Mississippi's opposition brief.^[89] Later on July 1, 2024, Federal Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden granted NetChoice's motion for a Preliminary Injunction against the law blocking it from going into effect.^{[90][91][92][93]}

The case was appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on July 5, 2024, and is wanting a decision from the court.^[94]

On June 20, 2024, The Governor of New York Kathy Hochul signed S7694A or the SAFE For Kids Act into law.^[95][96][97] The law requires operators to use age determination technology on users and not to give "addictive" feeds to anyone under 18 years of age unless they have parental consent. It also requires operators to not send notifications to a minors account between 12:00 AM – 6:00 AM Eastern Standard Time unless they have verified parental consent.^[98] The law takes effect 180 days after the Attorney General of New York promulgates rules and regulations on how to follow the law, the penalty for violating the law is a fine up to 5,000 dollars per violation.^[98][96]

The law has been criticized by the Electronic Fontier Foundation and NetChoice because the law requires age verification, however neither the Electronic Fontier Foundation nor NetChoice has yet sued New York over the law yet.^{[99][100][101]}

On July 4, 2023, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed HB 33 which was the bill for the fiscal years of 2024-2025 in Ohio a 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 minors under 16 and requires users under 16 years of age to have verified parental consent before they can making a contract on a social media or online gaming platform and was going to take effect on January 15, 2024, the law is enforced by the Attorney General of Ohio.^{[102][103][104][105]} Mike DeWine and Jon Husted both advocated for the law to be added in the fiscal years 2024-2025 bill.^[106]

On January 5, 2024, NetChoice sued Dave Yost, who is the Attorney General of Ohio to 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 to the Constitution.^[107] Four days later after NetChoice make its complaint on January 9, 2024, Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley granted a Temporary Restraining Order, temporally blocking the law from going into effect.^{[108][109][110]} On January 19, 2024 Lieutenant Governor Jon Husted filed a brief in opposition to a Preliminary Injunction against the law claiming that the law protects the welfare of minors, protected minors from mental health issues as well as the privacy of minors and protecting them from predators and that Ohio had a compelling government interest in the law.^[111] NetChoice on January 26, 2024, filed another brief in support of a Preliminary Injunction.^[112] The Attorney General of Ohio made a brief replying to NetChoice's brief in support of a Preliminary Injunction.^[113]

On February 7, 2024, a hearing was held for NetChoice's motion for a Preliminary Injunction against the law.^[114] 5 days later after the hearing on February 12, 2024, Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley granted NetChoice's motion for a Preliminary Injunction.^{[115][116][8][117]}

On May 2, 2024, Tennesse Governor Bill Lee signed HB 1891 also known as the Protecting Kids From Social Media Act.^{[118][119][120]} 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 the person attempting to access that account is under 18 years of age, then they must get parental consent. Parenta are allowed to view privacy settings on the account, set daily time restrictions, and implement breaks during which the minor cannot access the account of account holders under 18. The law takes effect January 1, 2025, and is enforced by the Attorney General of Tennesse.^[121][122]

On October 3, 2024, The Trade Association NetChoice sued Tennesse Attorney General Johnathan Skrmetti to The Middle District Court of Tennessee.^{[123][124][125]} The case is still wanting a decision in the District Court and Chief Judge William L. Campbell Jr is assigned to the case.^[126][127]

On June 13, 2023, Texas Governor signed HB 18 also known as The SCOPE Act.^{[128][129][130][131]} The law requires minors under 18 to have verified consent from a parent or guardian. Section 509.101 of bill requires that this verification should be done by using a commercially reasonable method.^[132]

In Section 509.052 of the law Minors aren't allowed to make purchases or engage in other financial and digital service providers aren't allowed to collect the known minor's precise geolocation or display targeted advertising to the known minor.^[132]

Section 509.053 of the law requires digital service providers are required to prevent the known minor's exposure to harmful material and other content that promotes, glorifies, or facilitates the following suicide, self-harm, or eating disorders; substance abuse; stalking, bullying, or harassment; or grooming, trafficking, child pornography, or other sexual exploitation or abuse.^[132]

The bill was criticized by the Chamber of Progress because the bill required platforms to filter out "grooming" content which could be used to censor LGBTQ content and claim that the bill with have an isolating effect on LGBTQ Minors.^[133]

On July 30, 2024, the Computer and Communications Industry Association and NetChoice would sue Ken Paxton who is the Attorney General of Texas in the Western District Court of Texas.^[134]

Later on, August 16, 2024, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression helped four plaintiffs sue Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton as well.^[135]

On August 30, 2024, Federal Judge Robert Pitman would grant Computer and Communications Industry Association and NetChoice a Preliminary Injunction against the laws "harmful to minors" section of it.^{[136][137][138][139]}

On March 23, 2023, Utah's Governor Spencer Cox signed SB 152 and HB 311 collective known as the Utah Social Media Regulation Act.^[1][3][4][2] SB 152 requires social media platforms with at least 5 million accounts worldwide to verify the age of all account holders and if they are under 18, they must have consent from a parent or guardian and the parent or guardian of a minor is allowed to view all their post and messages sent to them.^[2] SB 152 also prohibits direct messaging between other users if that user hasn't been linked to the account already as well as display targeted advertising to minors, it also requires that between 10:30 AM – 6:30 PM Mountain Standard Time a minor cannot access social media.^[2]

HB 311 creates a private right of action for parents to sue social media companies from causing "addiction" and harm to minors with a rebuttable that if the minor was under 16 that the social media platform actually caused the harm.^[1]

On December 18, 2023, The Trade Association NetChoice sued Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes and Katherine Hass arguing the law was preempted by federal law, unconstitutionally vague and was in violation of the First Amendment and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, two days later on December 20, 2023 NetChoice filed made a request for a Preliminary Injunction against the law.^{[140][141][142][143]} Shortly after the case started Sean Reyes announced to the court on January 19, 2024, that the laws effective date was delayed from March 2024 to October 2024 and that they would appeal and replace the law, the hearing would have happened on February 12, 2024, if the law wasn't delayed.^[144]

The bills that amended the Utah Social Media Regulation Act were SB 194 and HB 464 and were signed on March 13, 2024. the amendments removed the 10:30 pm – 6:30 pm curfew and changed it so that parental consent would only happen if a minor changed their privacy settings, it also replaced the age verification to age assurance that was at least 95% accurate.^[145][146]

NetChoice would make an updated complaint and motion for a Preliminary Injunction against the amendments on May 3, 2024.^[147][148] The state of Utah would make its brief in opposition to the Preliminary Injunction on May 31, 2024.^[149] On July 22, 2024, Chief Judge Robert J Shelby would grant in part the states motion to dismiss saying that the law didn't violate Section 230 and there for wasn't preempted by federal law.^[150][151] However later on September 10, 2024, NetChoice's motion for a Preliminary Injunction would be granted anyway by Robert J Shelby.^{[152][153][11][154]} The case was appealed to the 10th circuit court of appeals on October 11, 2024, a week after the case was appealed to the 10th circuit the case was put on stay in the district court.^[155][156]

On January 16, 2024, the Alaska Legislature introduced HB 271 also known as the Alaska Social Media Regulation Act. The bill requires social media platforms verify the age of users and if that user is under 18 years of age they must have consent from a parent before they can make an account, and this parental consent can be revoked at any time as seen Section 45.50.650 of the bill.^[157]

Section 45.50.670 of the bill prohibits an online platform from displaying, sending, or targeting an advertisement to a minor user or using data collected from a minor user for advertising purposes.^[158][159]

Section 45.50.680 of the bill prohibits an online platform from using an algorithm, artificial intelligence, machine learning, or other technology to select, recommend, rank, or personalize content for a minor user based on the minor user's profile, preferences, behavior, location, or other data.^[158][159]

Section 45.50.690 of the bill prohibits an online platform from may not employ a feature, design, or mechanism that encourages or rewards a minor user's excessive or compulsive use of the platform or that exploits the psychological vulnerabilities of a minor.^[158][159]

Section 45.50.700 of the bill sets up curfew for minors where they cannot use the platform between 10:30 pm – 6:30 am Alaska Standard Time.^[158][159]

The bill would be enforced by a private right of action and by the Attorney General of Alaska.^[158][159]

The bill had its first reading on January 16, 2024, and was referred to the Labor & Commerce and Judiciary Committee, however, didn't progress any further in the Legislator and died in committee.^[157][160]

The Think Tank R Street Insitute opposed HB 271 with them claiming it "would almost certainly be found unconstitutional on several different counts" as well as them claiming that it would be a government intrusion and that the bill was overly broad in its definitions.^[161]

On February 8, 2024, Seth Blattman introduced HB2858 to the Arizona State Legislature also known as the Protecting Children on Social Media Act. The bill requires social media platforms to do the following.^[162][163]

Establish default settings for the online service product or feature that provide the maximum degree of privacy protections to each user of the online service, product or feature.^[163]

Allow minors to opt out of the collection and use of the minor's personal information.^[163]

Prohibit a platform from using a minor's personal information for the use of targeted advertising.^[163]

Develop content filters for users to limit cyberbullying on the provider's social media platform, the bill doesn't define what "cyberbullying" is.^[163]

For each business day a platform is in the state of Arizona that are also required to do the following.^[163]

to use protections that prohibit any user on the platform who is at least 18 years of age from sending a message on the platform to a minor who is under 18 years of age.^[163][164]

prohibit a minor who is under 16 years of age from using the social media platform without first receiving approval from the minor's parent or guardian.^[163][164]

Later the bill was amended to exclude the parental consent for minors under 16, prohibiting anyone over 18 from messaging anyone under 18 as well as requiring platforms to filter cyberbullying.^{[165][166][167]}

The bill had made it to its second reading the Arizona State House, however, did progress much further than that and didn't make out of the House.^[168]

Senate Bill 1417 also known as the Parental Rights in Social Media Act was introduced to the Idaho State Legislature on March 8, 2024.^[169]

Section 48-2101 of the bill defines a social media company as a platform that has at least five million account holders worldwide and a social media platform is defined as an online forum that a social media company makes available for an account holder to create a profile upload posts, view the posts of other account holders, and interact with other account holders or users, however excludes email, streaming services, online gaming, cloud storage services, academic or scholarly research as well as news, sports, or entertainment as long as it's not user generated.^[170][171]

Section 48-2103 of the bill requires social media companies to not allow anyone under 18 years of age to have an account unless they have expressed consent from a parent or guardian.^[170][171]

The bill would be enforced by a private right of action by any person or the Attorney General of Idaho, penalties for violating the law are 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 the Idaho minor account holder.^[170][171]

The bill was referred to State Affairs on March 11, 2024, and died in committee after that. If the law had been enacted it would have taken effect on January 1, 2025.^{[169][170][171]}

On February 8, 2024, Willie Preston introduced SB 3440 also known as the Parental Consent for Social Media Act. the bill requires social media companies who make more than 100 million dollars per year to perform reasonable age verification by a third party either by a government-issued identification or any commercially reasonable age verification method, and if the person trying to make an account is under 18 years of age, they must have consent from a parent or guardian.^[172][173]

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 news, sports, entertainment, or other content that is preselected by the provider and not user generated. the bill permits comments on a digital news website, as long as the news content is posted only by the provider of the digital news website.^[172]

The bill also has a curfew of to not allow minors on social media platforms between 10 pm to 6 am Central Standard Time.^[173][172] The same day the bill was introduced it had its first reading and was referred to assignments.^[173]

On February 9, 2024, Laura Fine introduced SB 3510 also known as the Minor User of Social Media Protection Act.^[174] The bill requires social media platforms if they make more than 100 million dollars per year to verify the age of users and if that user is under 13 years old, they must have parental consent before making an account and prohibit the online platform from using the information of a minor under 13 for the use of targeted advertising as well as prohibit minors under 13 from having access to the platform between 10 pm - 6 am Central Standard Time.^[175] The bill appears to be very similar to SB 3440 except for the age it covers SB 3440 covers minors under 18 were as SB 3510 covers minors under 13.^[172][175] The same day the bill was introduced it had its first reading and was referred to assignments, the bill later on February 22, 2024, would gain its second cosponsor Rachel Ventura, however the bill hasn't progressed any further than that.^[174]

On January 10, 2024, Johanna King introduced HB 1314 to the Indiana State House.^[176] The bill requires social media services to use a reasonable age verification method to verify the age of users if they want to make an account and of accounts existing before July 1, 2024, and if the user is under 18 years of age, they must suspend the account within 14 days or get consent from a parent or guardian.^[177]

Social media services aren't allowed to recommendations for content to minor accounts, social media services may not disseminate advertising to minors, have a curfew for minors from 10:30 pm - 6:30 am Eastern Standard Time where they aren't allowed to use the platform, minors aren't allowed to change or configure an account.^[177]

a parent or guardian of a minors account is allowed to view all account activity, modify the account configuration, set a limit on the number of hours per day during which the minor may access the account.^[177]

The bill would be enforced by a private right of action and by the Attorney General of Indiana.^[177]

The bill had its first reading on January 10, 2024, and was referred to Committee on Judiciary, the bill died in committee after that.^[178]

On February 14, 2024, House File 2523 was introduced to the Iowa House of Representatives.^[179] The bill requires what it calls "social media platforms" which the bill defines as any platform that allows the following, creating personal profiles or accounts that include the person’s name, age, location, and other personal information, connect with other social media platform users as friends, followers, or any other means of connecting that allows other users to access shared content, facilitate public access to content, including text, images, videos, internet site links, or any other information, send private messages to other social media platform users, create groups for the purpose of communicating about shared interests.^[180]

The bill excludes interactive gaming, virtual gaming, or an online service 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.^[180]

The bill requires social media platforms to not allow anyone under 18 from having an account unless they have parental authorization to do so.^[180]

Social media platforms are also required to allow the parent or guardian of a minor to view all posts created by the minor on the social media platform, view all messages sent by, and responses received by the minor on the social media platform, Control the privacy and account settings of the minor’s account on the social media platform, monitor and limit the amount of time the minor may spend using the social media platform.^[180]

The bill would be enforced by the Attorney General of Iowa and by a private right of action.^[180]

The had passed the Iowa House of Representatives by a vote of 88-6. The six no votes were Monica Kurth, Brian K. Lohse, Shannon Lundgren, Megan L. Srinivas, Phil Thompson, and Ross Wilburn.^{[181][182][183]} The next day on March 7, 2024, the bill had its first reading in the Iowa Senate and was referred to Technology, later on March 11, 2024, the bill went to the subcommittee, however died in the legislature after this.^{[179][184][185]}

On February 1, 2024, House Bill 450 was introduced in the Kentucky Legislature.^[186]

The bill requires social media platforms to verify the age of new and existing accounts by a digitized identification card, including a digital copy of a driver's license, government issued identification, financial documents or other documents that are reliable proxies for age, or any other reliable age authentication method, this verification is done by a trusted third-party vendor and if the user that has been verified is under 18 they are not permitted to have an account unless they have consent from a parent or guardian.^[187]

Parents and guardians are allowed to view all posts the minor makes on the social media platform, view all messages sent to or by the minor on the social media platform, control privacy and account settings of the minor's account as well as monitor and limit the amount of time the minor account holder spends on the platform.^[187]

The bill excludes email, search engines, cloud storage, product review sites, broadband internet services, or an online service that consists primarily of information or content that is not user-generated from its definition of a social media platform.^[187]

The bill would be enforced by the Attorney General of Kentucky and by a right of action by citizens.^[187]

On September 11, 2024, Mark Tisdel, Donni Steele, Tom Kuhn introduced HB 5920 to the Michigan Legislature.^[188][189]

The bill requires social media companies who have at least 5 million accounts to verify the age of all users with 14 days of them attempting to access the account after the effective date and if that user is under 18 years of age, they must have confirmed consent from a parent or guardian.^[190][191]

The social media company must ensure that a minor account is not shown in the search results of the social media platform unless the minors account is linked to other accounts through friending.^[190][191]

The social media company must prohibit the use of targeted or suggested groups, services, products, posts, and accounts, or users in a minor account and not collect or use any personal information from a minors account.^[190][191]

The social media company shall supply a parent or guardian what has confirmed consent for a minors account with a password or other means for the parent or guardian to access the minor account, and the parent or guardian is allowed view all the posts and messages made by or sent to the minors account.^[190][191]

The social media company isn't allowed to have minors on its platform between 10:30 pm - 6:30 am Eastern Standard Time or Central Standard Time.^[190][191]

The Attorney General of Michigan shall promulgate rules for social media companies to verify the age of users, forms or methods that must be used to identify residents of this state, and that the forms and methods must not be limited to a valid identification card issued by a governmental entity.^[190][191]

The Attorney General of Michigan is also charged with enforcing the bill and can seek damages of up to 2,500 dollars per violation and the offender is entitled to pay attorney generals attorney fees, court costs, and investigative fees if the attorney general is successful in a civil action. Comsumer can also bring civil action seeking actual damages or an amount equal to $2,500 for each violation of the bill if passed into law.^[190][191]

If signed into law the bill would go into effect 180 days after being signed by the Governor.^[190][191]

On February 24, 2022, HF 3724 was introduced to the Minnesota House of Representatives.^[192]

When the bill was originally was introduced, it required social media platforms which it defined originally as any electronic medium, including a browser-based or application-based interactive computer service, telephone network, or data network, that allows users to create, share, and view user-created content.^[193]

If the social media platform had at least 1 million users, they weren't allowed to use algorithmic recommendation systems to any minor that the platforms knew or had reason to know that the individual was a minor under 18. It excluded user generated content that was created by a federal, state, or local government or by a public or private school, college, or university from what was prohibited to be recommended to minors.^[193]

Later on March 28, 2022 the bill was amended to allow social media platforms to allow algorithmic recommendation systems to minor under 18 if the algorithmic recommendation systems was used to block access to inappropriate or harmful content to minors, or parental controls used by the social media platform that are designed to control access of the account of a minor to filter content for age-appropriate materials.^[194]

The bill had made it through its first and second reading in the Minnesota House of Representatives.^[195][196]

HF 3724 is an Amendment of Section 325F.6945 of Minnesota Statutes which the enforcement of Section 325F.6945 is done under section 45.027 of Minnesota Statutes, which enforcement under section 45.027 is done by the Minnesota Department of Commerce, however the matter can be referred to by a Minnesota Department of Commerce to the Attorney General of Minnesota or the county attorney of the appropriate county.^{[197][198][199]}

Internet law professor Eric Goldman warned that the bill would likely lead to mandatory age verification and that the bill was likely unconstitutional.^[200]

On January 2, 2024, Josh Hurlbert Introduced HB 2157 to the Missouri House of Representative.^[201]

The bill requires social media platforms which it defines as any service that allows users to create a profile, upload posts, view the posts of other account holders, and Interact with other account holders or users.^[202]

It 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, Shared 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.^[202]

It requires social media platforms to verify the age of all existing users and not allow anyone under 18 to be an account holder on a social media platform unless they have consent from a parent or guardian, a minor may not be an account if ineligible to hold or open an account under any other provision of state or federal law.^[202]

The Attorney General of Missouri shall make rules for social media platforms to establish processes or means by which a social media company shall meet the age verification requirements of the law, establish requirements for retaining, protecting, and securely disposing of any information obtained by the age verification process, require that the information from the age verification process is only retained for the purpose of compliance and shall not be used for any other purposes.^[202]

A social media platform isn't allowed to give minor account holders direct messaging any user that is not linked to the minor's account through the express consent of the account holder.^[202]

A social media platform is prohibited from giving a minor account holder the following, have the minor account holder appear in search results for any user that is not linked to the account, display any advertising to the account holder, collect or use any personal information from the minor account holder, promote targeted or suggested groups, services, products, posts, accounts, or users to the account holder.^[202]

The parent or guardian of a minor is allowed to view all posts the minor account holder makes under the account, and all communications sent to or by the minor account holder.^[202]

A parent or guardian of a minor account holder is also allowed to change or eliminate the time-of-day restrictions including the 10:30 pm - 6:30 am curfew, set a limit on the number of hours per day the minor can use the account, and the social media platform must not allow the minor to bypass the restrictions on their account.^[202]

A minor account holder isn't allowed to use the social media platform between 10:30 pm - 6:30 am Central Standard Time.

The bill is enforced by the Attorney General of Missouri and by a private right of action and violating the bill is met by a penalty of 2,500$ per violation.^[202]

If signed into law it would take effect on July 1, 2025.^[202]

On November 20, 2024, SB 63 was introduced to the Nevada Legislature.^[203]

The bill requires social media platforms which are defined as any service become a registered user, and establish an account, create a profile or otherwise create, share and view user-generated content; and serves as a medium for users to Interact, users, profiles or other means; or Interact with or otherwise view the content generated by other users of the platform.^[204]

It them requires services that fall into its definition of "social media platform" to verify the age of users and if the user is at least 13 years of age but is under 18 years of age they must have verified parental consent and verify documentary evidence to verify a parental or guardianship relationship for the minor who is at least 13 to have an account, and the parent can revoke the consent at any time. If the user is under 13 years of age, they cannot make an account regardless of whether or not they have parental consent.^[204]

The Nevada Department of Health and Human Services shall establish recommendation of methods to social media platforms to obtain the affirmative consent of a verified parent or legal guardian, determine whether the age verification system by the social media platform is at least 95 percent effective at guessing the age of a user.^[204]

A social media platform cannot use the personal information of a minor user in an algorithmic recommendation system. ^[204]

A social media platform shall disable the following features from a minors account infinite scrolling, content that loads down a user's page without the need for the user to open a separate page and which has no apparent end, pages that have no visible or apparent end as the user continues to scroll, the display of interactive metrics, icons or emoticons which indicate that a user has clicked a  button to indicate their reaction to a user’s content, number of times that other users have shared, liked or reposted the user’s content, autoplay, functions that allow other users or advertisers to livestream on the platform.^[204]

A social media platform cannot send notifications to a minor between 12 am to 6 am or between 8 am to 3 am Monday through Friday through the months of September to May Pacific Standard Time unless the minor has parental consent to have notifications during those hours of the day.^[204]

The bill is enforced by the Attorney General of Nevada and if signed into law goes into effect October 1, 2025.^[204]

The bill is a prefile for the 83rd Nevada Legislature which will begin on February 3, 2025.^[203]

On February 2, 2023, Senate Bill 319 was introduced to the New Mexico Senate.^[205] If the bill became law violating SB 319 would result in a penalty of not more than 2,500 dollars per affected child for each negligent violation; and fines of not more than 7,500 dollars per affected child for each intentional violation and enforcement is done by the Attorney General of New Mexico.^[206][207]

On April 17, 2023, the North Carolina House of Representatives introduced HB 644 also known as the Social Media Algorithmic Control in IT Act.^[208]

The bill requires social media platforms that have over one million users to verify the age of its users and if that user is under 18 years of age and these platforms must control their algorithmic recommendation systems so that no user data from a North Carolina platform user who is a minor is used to inform content recommendations to the minor and nothing in the requirement shouldn't allow content recommendations from being shown as a direct result of explicit actions, such as showing posts from accounts a user follows in a chronological feed, however platforms aren't allowed to user any data, including follows to generate algorithmic recommendations.^[209]

It also prohibits social media platforms from uses targeted advertising or promotions to minors under 18, however platforms are still allowed to use advertising or promotions to minors only if advertisements or promotions that are shown to the user based upon explicit actions, such as being based on the results of a search initiated by the user on the platform.^[209]

Other requirements of the law are that platform's privacy policy must be accessible on the platform's website with the disclosure of how user data will be used by the platform stated in a succinct and easy to understand statement that is less than 250 words.^[209]

User data may be used in algorithmic recommendations only when the user has been notified and consents to the use of the data in such manner.^[209]

Requests for data access that will be used to inform algorithmic recommendations shall require full disclosure of the use of the data, including third-party use and this notice shall be separate and distinct from platform's terms of service notification, and that the platform must be fully functional for a user without the user having to give consent for their user data to be used to inform algorithmic recommendations.^[209]

The bill would have also set of the North Carolina Data Privacy Task Force with the North Carolina Department of Justice.^[209]

The bill died in the legislature, however if it was signed into law platforms starting October 1, 2024, would have to provide the Consumer Protection Division of the North Carolina Department of Justice to with a digital copy of the platform's privacy policy and certification that the platform has complied with the law and would have fully taken effect on January 1, 2025 and would be enforced by the Attorney General of North Carolina.^[209]

On February 5, 2024, Chad Caldwell introduced HB 3914 to the Oklahoma Legislature and had its first reading the same day.^[210]

The bill requires social media companies which it defines as any services that makes at least 100 million dollars and that allows anyone to create a public profile, establish an account, or register as a user for the primary purpose of interacting socially with others, upload or create posts or content, which may include, but is not limited to, user-generated short video clips of dancing, voiceovers, or other acts of entertainment and which isn't educational or informative, view posts, activity, or content of other account holders, and interact with other users.^[211]

It excludes subscription services that offer content and aren't mainly used for social interaction, companies that offer gaming, virtual gaming, or an online service that allows the creation and uploading of content for the purpose of interactive gaming, entertainment, or associated entertainment, and the communication related to that content, online services were the main focus is the exclusive function is email or direct messaging, cloud storage services, enterprise cybersecurity services, educational devices, or enterprise collaboration tools for K - 12 schools and derives less than 25% of the company's revenue from social media.^[211]

A social media company isn't allowed to give its services to anyone under 16 years of age and minors between 16 and 17 years of age must have parental consent and verify age through a third party which is required to verify age by a digitized identification card, including a digital copy of a driver license, government-issued identification or any commercially reasonable age verification method.^[211]

Social media companies aren't allowed to Process the personal information of any minor if the social media platform has actual knowledge of or willfully disregards that the processing may result in substantial harm or is a privacy risk to minors.^[211]

Social media companies aren't allowed to Profile a minor unless profiling is necessary to provide the online service and that profiling does not pose substantial harm or is a privacy risk to minors.^[211]

Social media companies aren't allowed to Collect, sell, share, or retain any personal information that is not necessary to provide to the service, use the personal information of a minor for any reason other than the reason for which the personal information was collected unless they can show a compelling reason that the use of the personal information does not pose substantial harm or is a privacy risk to minors.^[211]

Social media companies aren't allowed to collect, sell, or share any precise geolocation data of minors unless the collection of the precise geolocation data is strictly necessary for the online platform to provide the service.^[211]

Social media companies aren't allowed to collect any precise geolocation data of a minor without providing an obvious sign to the minor for the duration of the collection that the precise geolocation data is being collected.^[211]

Social media companies aren't allowed to use dark patterns to lead or encourage minors to provide personal information beyond what personal information would otherwise be reasonably expected to be provided for that online service to forgo privacy protections or take any action that the online platform has actual knowledge of or willfully disregards that may result in substantial harm or is a privacy risk to minors.^[211]

Social media companies aren't allowed to use any personal information collected to estimate the age or age range for any other purpose or retain that personal information longer than necessary to estimate age.^[211]

Enforcement of this bill is done by the Attorney General of Oklahoma and social media companies with be given 45 days to comply the act before action by the Attorney General of Oklahoma is taken and if they don't comply within 45 days they will face fines of up to 2,500 dollars 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 his or her parent or custodian.^[211]

The bill later passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives on March 14, 2024, by a vote of 69 - 16.^{[212][213][214]}

The bill made it to its second reading in the senate, however died in the senate before being able to be passed.^[210]

The bill would have taken effect July 1, 2024, if it had been signed into law.^[211]