Supporters of H4229 and S30 told the Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology that algorithmic social feeds and overnight notifications harm minors and that state rules are needed to protect children. Representative McGregor, a bill sponsor, said the bills would limit “addictive social media feeds for minors” and direct the attorney general to adopt enforceable age‑assurance rules. "By passing this bill, we would be taking a massive step toward alleviating addictions before they begin," she said.

Several parents, advocacy groups and public‑health witnesses urged favorable reports. Julie Skelfo, founder of Mothers Against Media Addiction, said internal documents from platforms show companies design features to maximize time on site and that the consequences for youth mental health are severe. "Children deserve to be safe," Skelfo said. Seventeen‑year‑old Mary Flaherty described personal harm she linked to algorithmic recommendations and urged the committee to move the bills.

Privacy and policy groups also supported narrow, design‑focused limits. Suzanne Bernstein of the Electronic Privacy Information Center said the bills are "content‑agnostic" and regulate data use and certain design practices — for example, limits on using passive surveillance signals (time on post, hover) to curate minors’ feeds and a prohibition on overnight push notifications — which she argued would not run afoul of the First Amendment. "S30 protects minors' privacy, enhances minors' autonomy, and significantly improves their online safety," Bernstein said.

Opponents and cautious witnesses raised constitutional and operational concerns. Ari Cohn, lead counsel for tech policy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), warned that mandating age verification or banning recommendation algorithms risks compelled disclosure of identity, loss of anonymity and content‑based restrictions on speech. "This bill would effectively require all social media platforms ... to verify the age of every user," he said, arguing courts have enjoined similar laws. NetChoice and industry representatives told the committee that age‑verification requirements have been struck down or enjoined in several federal cases and that verification methods can undermine privacy and access. Kyle Seppi of CCIA highlighted litigation risk and the potential for small businesses to be disadvantaged by costly verification tools.

Industry groups urged alternatives such as parental controls, digital literacy programs and voluntary platform tools. Chamber of Progress and Fairplay echoed that platforms already offer settings and that outright bans on algorithmic feeds may have unintended consequences, such as reducing the ability of marginalized users to find supportive communities.

Witnesses also debated implementation details: how age assurance would be carried out, the privacy protections required during any verification process, and whether the attorney general’s rulemaking can balance accuracy with minimal data collection. Several supportive witnesses pointed to New York and Vermont as precedents and urged Massachusetts to adopt protective rules in parallel with data‑privacy measures.

No formal action was taken; the committee received extensive testimony on both the public‑health harms described by parental and clinical witnesses and the constitutional and implementation concerns raised by civil‑liberties and industry witnesses.