Attorney General presents bill to limit platforms’ youth targeting; parents, industry debate safeguards and constitutional risks

Chair Marzola opened a public hearing on Senate Bill 63, the Nevada Youth Online Safety Act, introduced to the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee by Attorney General Aaron Ford. Ford said the bill targets three goals: reduce predation, protect privacy and address youth mental health on covered digital platforms. He described guardrails that would be available as parental controls, limits on features such as infinite scrolling and autoplay, time-of-day notifications restrictions and a privacy regime for children under 13 modeled on Virginia’s 2024 legislation (House Bill 707).

Ford told the committee his office convened a working group and removed a demanded age‑verification requirement in favor of robust parental controls and data‑protection assessments. He said platforms would have 30 days to cure violations and failure to remedy would be treated as a deceptive trade practice. The attorney general framed the bill as “parent empowerment” and said the measure protects children against grooming, harassment and algorithmic harms.

Bethany Farris testified as a private citizen about the death of her 11‑year‑old daughter Victoria, saying the child had viewed self‑harm content on TikTok and that parental notifications and age verification might have enabled intervention. That testimony was repeatedly referenced by members as illustrating the bill’s purpose.

Mark Krueger, chief deputy attorney general, summarized the bill’s provisions: definitions of covered digital platforms with enumerated exclusions (email, teleconferencing, cloud storage, educational materials, telehealth), parental toggles for infinite scrolling (limited by the bill to six items or seven minutes), interactive metrics (likes, shares), autoplay video and live broadcasting; time and notification limits during school hours and overnight; and a prohibition on targeted advertising and selling the data of children under 13 except for narrow, enumerated exceptions. The bill includes data‑protection assessment requirements for controllers when collecting data on children under 13 and provides the attorney general enforcement authority under state consumer‑protection law.

Committee members pressed on key points: whether gaming platforms (e.g., Roblox) were excluded (the presenters clarified Nevada gaming and online gaming are distinct and gaming platforms are not categorically excluded, though some interactive video game chat functions are treated differently in Section 19), whether educational devices (school‑issued Chromebooks) are affected (Krueger and Ford said educational settings are carved out so schools may retain existing device controls), how parental verification would work (presenters said platforms would retain flexibility about verification methods and that age verification had been removed from the bill as a concession), and why the bill uses different age thresholds (the privacy protections for under‑13 children track the Virginia law, while other protections apply to minors defined as under 18). Presenters said the bill is “Virginia plus” — incorporating Virginia’s privacy elements and adding parental toggles and time/place/manner limits.

Supporters from nonprofits and parents testified in favor, urging the committee to pass the bill as a tool for families. Opponents included trade and industry groups: the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), TechNet, NetChoice, and several technology and platform witnesses (including a Meta representative), who argued the bill’s algorithm and “time/notification” restrictions would impede beneficial personalization, risk First Amendment challenges, be vague, and could unintentionally deny access to supportive online communities. Industry witnesses urged collaboration and noted many platforms already offer parental controls and teen account features.

The attorney general and his team disputed constitutional critiques in their closing remarks, saying the measure imposes time, place and manner restrictions (not content bans) and that the bill avoided the approaches in California that had been invalidated in litigation. They reiterated that the bill is parental‑choice focused, with many features optional toggles for parents.

No final committee vote on SB 63 occurred during this hearing; the committee closed the hearing after taking the scheduled testimony limits. Members indicated a separate work‑session process and limited testimony plan (30 minutes support, 30 minutes opposition, 30 minutes neutral) for subsequent proceedings.

Ending: The hearing recorded sharply divided stakeholder views — parents and child‑safety advocates urged statutory guardrails, while industry warned of constitutional risk and urged voluntary or collaborative approaches. The committee left the bill in hearing status pending further process and potential amendments.