Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Privacy Children topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate motion to restrict online data collection from minors fails after broad tech opposition
Summary
A bill that would have defined children as anyone under 18 for online data-collection rules failed to advance after testimony from tech industry groups and civil-society advocates about privacy, enforcement and unintended harms.
A proposed expansion of child-data protections to cover all users under age 18 did not pass out of the Senate technology committee on Feb. 12 after more than an hour of testimony from privacy advocates, industry groups and civil-rights organizations.
Senator Sutterlein introduced a substitute to move the Statement of Economic Interest filing date earlier and, separately, presented SB 7 83, a bill to treat anyone under age 18 as a child for internet privacy protections. Sutterlein and supporters said the change would curb aggressive, targeted marketing at teens and protect minors from commercial data collection without parental consent.
Opposition and concerns Industry groups including Meta, Chamber Progress, TechNet, the Northern Virginia Technology Council and NetChoice testified against the proposal in committee. Their concerns focused on these points: - Federal preemption and conflicts: Critics pointed to the Children—s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which applies to children under 13, and warned that state-level expansions to age 18 could create legal conflicts or be preempted in litigation. - Age verification and privacy risks: Dozens of witnesses said the only practical methods for verifiable parental consent would require collecting sensitive personal data (IDs, credit-card numbers or centralized age-verification systems), which itself raises cybersecurity and privacy risks for minors. - Harm to vulnerable youth: Civil-society witnesses, including Chamber Progress and advocates for LGBTQ youth, warned the consent requirement could be weaponized by abusive guardians to prevent vulnerable young people from accessing critical resources and support online.
Committee outcome After discussion and a substitute that included some technical changes, the committee voted on SB 7 83 and recorded the tally as Ayes 8, No 6, 1 abstention. The bill failed to report out of committee on that vote.
Nut graf: The committee debate showed broad agreement that online safety for young people is important, but committee members and witnesses were divided about the right legal mechanism. Industry groups emphasized technical and First Amendment risks; advocates emphasized the harms of unregulated data-driven targeting of minors.
Quotes —This is not a content restriction bill,— Senator Sutterlein said, describing the proposal as aimed at commercial tracking and targeted advertising, not access to information.
—The only way to achieve verifiable parental consent is by identifying all users of all ages,— Hope Ledford of Chamber Progress told the committee, arguing the bill would increase, not reduce, the amount of personal data collected about minors.
Ending: Sponsors said they would continue consultations to find narrower options that protect minors while avoiding the practical privacy and constitutional concerns highlighted by industry witnesses.
