Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Social Media Excise Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to levy per-user tax on social media data collection; amendment clarifies scope
Summary
Chair Gomez introduced HF3117 to impose a per-user excise tax on social media platforms that collect Minnesota users' data; the committee adopted an A1 amendment clarifying references to social media platforms and then laid the bill over for possible inclusion in the 2025 taxes bill after extensive public testimony for and against.
The Minnesota House Taxes Committee on April 9 considered House File 3117, a bill by Chair Gomez that would impose a per-capita excise tax on social media platforms based on the number of monthly Minnesota users whose data the platforms collect.
Chair Gomez said the proposal is intended to make large tech platforms contribute toward the social costs of data-mining and algorithmic harms—particularly as they affect children and mental health—by taxing platforms that monetize usersAdata rather than relying solely on general taxes. "If you're using a service from a giant corporation and you're not paying for it, you are not the consumer, you are the product," Chair Gomez said during closing remarks.
The committee adopted an A1 amendment (described in committee as clarifying language to specifically reference social media platforms) and then heard public testimony from a wide range of witnesses. Supporters, including Pastor Julie Thompson, Sue Budd (city council member, St. Louis Park, and Isaiah leader) and labor and community coalitions, argued the tax would recapture revenue from highly profitable platforms and provide funding for state services hurt by algorithm-driven harms. Several witnesses described mental-health and youth-safety concerns and framed the tax as a Pigouvian response to the platforms' negative externalities.
Opponents, including the Minnesota Broadcasters Association and representatives of advertising and digital-industry groups, said the bill's broad language could sweep in local broadcasters and small businesses that use digital tools and newsletters; they argued the tax would ultimately be passed on to advertisers and consumers, harming small businesses and local news. The Department of Revenue provided a revenue estimate (included in committee materials) but did not name specific platforms; committee members asked for follow-up clarification from staff.
Members debated several policy and practical concerns: whether proceeds would be earmarked for related services (Representative Wiener noted committee materials indicated revenue would go to the general fund and asked about linkage to specific social-harm remedies), whether administration would be feasible for out-of-state platforms, and whether the tax would be regressive if costs were passed to consumers. Chair Gomez said the Department of Revenue had outlined an administrative approach in its estimate and argued the state's greater concern should be the platforms' collection and sale of Minnesotans' data.
The transcript records threshold language presented by the bill's author indicating a series of user-count brackets (the committee record contains inconsistent numeric phrases in testimony); committee members and witnesses noted those thresholds and asked for clearer fiscal modeling and precise drafting. The A1 amendment passed by voice vote; the full bill was laid over for potential inclusion in the 2025 taxes omnibus bill.
The committee did not take a roll-call vote on the bill during the April 9 session; committee members expressed a range of views and requested additional detail from the Department of Revenue and clarifications in statutory language before advancing further action.
