Legislative subcommittee hears competing views on S.268 and H.3431 age‑appropriate design proposals

A South Carolina legislative subcommittee heard testimony on Senate Bill 268 and House Bill 3431, proposals to add an "age‑appropriate design code" to Title 39 that would require parental controls, restrict targeted advertising, add transparency and reporting requirements, and include enforcement and penalties for covered online services.

Supporters, including pediatricians, told the panel the bills are needed to protect children’s developing brains and reduce harms such as cyberbullying, exploitation and sleep disruption. "Handing kids smartphones during puberty is a recipe for disaster," said Dr. Martha Edwards, president of the South Carolina chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Edwards said pediatricians across the state support H.3431 and urged lawmakers to "take an important step toward helping us reverse the youth mental health crisis." She referred to clinical cases and research linking excessive social media use with anxiety and depression.

Trade associations and industry witnesses urged caution and offered alternatives. Amy Boss, director of state and federal affairs for NetChoice, said, "SB 268 would likely be found unconstitutional and could harm both free speech and innovation," and warned that broad coverage of "any service reasonably likely to be accessed by minors" could regulate large swaths of the internet. Boss and other business witnesses suggested narrower, constitutionally tailored approaches such as digital‑literacy programs, targeted enforcement against child sexual abuse material and increased parental‑control outreach.

Danny Bounds, counsel for education policy at the Software and Information Industry Association, said his group supports the bills' intent but warned that broad mandates could limit access to educational and other legitimate content. He described a scenario in which content that could help an at‑risk child might be blocked and said lawmakers should avoid measures that would "get in between a parent and a child." Tom Mann of the Computer and Communications Industry Association said vague standards such as "commercially reasonable efforts" risked over‑restriction and could push platforms to collect more user data for age verification.

Several witnesses pointed to recent court decisions and litigation in other states. NetChoice, Chamber of Progress and other groups cited federal court rulings that halted California’s age‑appropriate design code and warned S.268 and H.3431 could face similar constitutional challenges. Chamber of Progress policy manager Hope Ledford said the committee’s inclusion of a digital‑literacy program in H.3431 is "an excellent step," but repeated the groups' position that the bills, as drafted, risk costly legal challenges that would fall to taxpayers.

Committee members also discussed technical carve‑outs. Representatives of Stride Academies asked the subcommittee to exclude online services used "exclusively" for state‑authorized K‑12 education so virtual school operations would not be disrupted; a witness said about 14,900 students currently use online programs in the state. The chair said staff would work on language to define an "educational entity" and other amendments and that the committee planned a follow‑up meeting to consider those changes. "We'll work on that language," the chair said near the meeting's close.

No formal votes were taken during the hearing. The subcommittee adjourned after setting a schedule to continue consideration of the proposed amendments.