Nebraska senators debate Age-Appropriate Online Design Code Act amid First Amendment and implementation concerns

Senators debated Legislative Bill 504, the Age‑Appropriate Online Design Code Act, and an amendment (AM 8 56) that substantially revised the bill’s definitions, requirements and enforcement provisions.

The bill’s introducer, Senator Boson, said the measure aims to “put up guardrails that allow for kids to be kids and to dip their toe in the water” of online services while protecting minors from harms she and others described, including bullying, depression and increased screen time. Boson summarized key changes in AM 8 56, saying the amendment removed several provisions that opponents had flagged — including design‑impact reporting requirements — and narrowed the bill to apply to “known minors” using an “actual knowledge” standard rather than to all services “likely to be accessed by minors.”

Why it matters: proponents and several lawmakers described growing evidence that some social platforms can harm young users and said state safeguards are needed because national solutions are slow. Opponents and several senators warned the measure still raises serious First Amendment and vagueness questions and could impose substantive content‑curation or default‑setting obligations on platforms that courts have found constitutionally sensitive.

Major points of debate

- Scope and definitions: Boson said AM 8 56 replaces a broader coverage test with five prerequisites that limit the set of covered services and adds an “actual knowledge” approach for identifying minors. She told colleagues the amendment also adds a definition of “dark patterns” and removes a previously proposed “reasonably likely to be accessed by minors” test.

- Defaults and tools: AM 8 56 requires covered services to provide “accessible and easy to use tools” to limit exposure and to establish default settings for those protections. Boson and supporters said the requirement is to make protective tools available and configurable; Boson argued it does not force platforms to impose the settings on every minor but to make them available as defaults that can be enabled. Senator Dungan and others expressed concern that subsection language about default settings could be read to require platforms to set protective modes by default and thereby dictate content curation.

- First Amendment risk and litigation history: multiple senators cited NetChoice v. Bonta and the litigation over California’s parallel statute as evidence that content‑based restrictions of online services face constitutional scrutiny. Senator Dungan and others noted recent injunctions and a pending trial in federal court related to the California experience and said that history counsels caution.

- Enforcement and penalties: AM 8 56 replaced proposed rulemaking and reporting language with a civil enforcement scheme that gives covered services a cure period. Senators asked whether penalties would create a private right of action and how any civil penalties would be allocated; Senator John Kavanaugh suggested clarifying that fine revenue comply with Nebraska constitutional provisions for fines and penalties.

- Implementation timeline: Boson said AM 8 56 sets an operative date of Jan. 1, 2026, with a six‑month cure period intended to allow companies time to comply.

What was not decided

Floor debate on AM 8 56 and LB504 continued through the transcript but did not include a recorded final vote on the amendment or the underlying bill in the provided segment. Multiple senators indicated support for the amendment as a compromise step while reserving judgment on the final bill.

Voices and positions

- Senator Boson (bill sponsor) said the amendment narrows the bill and removes the most constitutionally sensitive provisions; she urged colleagues to support AM 8 56 as a child‑safety measure. - Senator Dungan (Banking, Commerce & Insurance) said he remained “hesitant” because of First Amendment and content‑curation concerns but appreciated changes made in AM 8 56. - Senator John Kavanaugh said he supported portions of the amendment that removed attorney‑general rulemaking authority and that he had suggested clarifying language about disposition of fines. - Senator Conrad and others urged careful drafting to avoid content‑based restrictions and flagged NetChoice v. Bonta as a cautionary precedent.

Next steps

Debate continued; the transcript ends without a recorded final vote on AM 8 56 or LB504. Sponsors said they would keep working to refine language and to address allocation and constitutional questions before any final action.

Ending: The bill remained on Select File with debate ongoing in the provided transcript segment.