Alabama committee hears public testimony on competing bills to restrict minors' social media access; no votes taken

A House committee of the Alabama Legislature held public hearings on two bills that would limit minors' access to social media and require age verification, but the committee did not take votes during the session.

The bills drew testimony from the sponsors and outside witnesses about differing approaches: one proposal would bar people under age 16 from having their own social media accounts without parental consent, while the other would create a regulated “minor account” framework with parental access and platform requirements such as limits on infinite scrolling, push notifications and adult-to-minor direct messaging.

Why it matters: Lawmakers and witnesses said the bills aim to reduce harms to children tied to online bullying, predatory contact and addictive design. Opponents warned the measures raise First Amendment and privacy issues, and several witnesses urged the committee to work with stakeholders and monitor litigation in other states.

The hearing began with a sponsor describing the intent of HB235 as a straightforward restriction "that the state of Alabama not allow a person who is under the age of 16 to have their own social media account without having their parental consent," and saying the sponsor planned to meet with technology companies and other interested parties. That sponsor is not named in the transcript for the portion introducing HB235 and is identified in the record only as the bill sponsor (Representative, name not specified in transcript). Representative David Robbins introduced a separate bill, HB276, and described differences in his measure: minor accounts for persons under 18, parental access to account content, time-use warnings, prohibition on infinite scrolling and limits on messaging from adults who are not already connected to a minor.

Supporters and witnesses urged protections for children. Amy Boss, director of state and federal affairs for a technology trade organization identified in the transcript as "Met Choice," testified that HB235 and similar age-verification mandates raise constitutional and privacy concerns, saying, "We believe HB235 would violate the First Amendment by blocking access to lawful speech" and warning that collecting identity data for age checks could create "a honeypot of sensitive data" vulnerable to theft. She urged investment in digital literacy and privacy protections instead of broad verification mandates.

Representative Robbins outlined provisions in HB276 intended to balance protections and parental authority: parents would have access to a minor's account through age-verified mechanisms; platforms would be required to provide annual reports to the attorney general on issues including trafficking and illicit sales discovered on their services; and experiences linked to addictive features would be restricted for minor accounts. Robbins said his bill "places the burdens on [social media companies]" to change product design where it harms children and cited input from the Center for Humane Technology and research described in Jonathan Haidt's book The Anxious Generation.

Lawmakers asked technical and funding questions. Committee members pressed how age verification would work in practice, what "commercially reasonable" verification methods would mean, and where enforcement costs would fall. Robbins acknowledged his bill funds attorney-general enforcement primarily through fines and fees and said the Department of Education is asked to create an optional curriculum on digital literacy but is not provided a dedicated funding allocation; he said he would be open to diverting some collected funds to education.

Other public commenters echoed calls for strong safeguards. Bishop Jim Lowe urged the committee to "hold social media companies accountable" and called for age verification, parental controls and AI-driven moderation. A representative for the video-game industry and other witnesses raised concerns about the definition of "social media" and recommended clarifying exemptions for games and other interactive products.

No vote was taken. The committee chair noted it is committee practice not to vote on the same day as a public hearing; both sponsors and several witnesses said they would continue to meet with stakeholders to refine language and address unintended consequences.

Votes at a glance: No motions or roll-call votes were taken on HB235 or HB276 during this hearing.

What comes next: Sponsors said they will meet with technology companies, platform operators and other interested parties; committee members requested copies of comparable statutes and curricula from other states and signaled further discussion at a later date.