Georgia Senate committee hears divided testimony on SB 467, an app‑store age‑verification bill

Sen. Kausser, sponsor of SB 467, told the Senate Children and Families Committee the bill is intended to "protect minors from, inappropriate materials that are connected to apps" by requiring app‑store providers to verify users' ages and obtain parental consent before a minor can download or make in‑app purchases. He told the committee enforcement would lie with the attorney general under the state's unfair trade practices law and said the measure would require confidentiality for collected age data.

The bill prompted sharply divided testimony. Supporters, including Mike Griffin of the Georgia Baptist Mission Board and Trip Richardson of Frontline Policy Council, said SB 467 would give parents a meaningful role and make it harder for children to access predatory features. "We do support this bill," Mike Griffin said, framing the measure as part of child‑protection work.

Opponents — a mix of technology trade groups, civil‑liberties advocates and parental‑rights speakers — cautioned that the proposal would create privacy and constitutional problems and could do more harm than good. Nenia Laniero of ACT (the App Association) said the bill "raises serious concerns, particularly for small app developers" by imposing broad compliance obligations. Tom Mann of the Computer and Communications Industry Association warned such mandates "inherently require collecting sensitive data" and increase risks of identity theft and breaches.

Several witnesses pointed to recent litigation in other states. Caden Rosenbaum of the Reason Foundation and NetChoice's Justin Hill noted that laws with similar verification provisions in states including Texas and Utah have faced court challenges; Rosenbaum said those cases cast doubt on mandatory account‑level verification. "The bills that did pass are being litigated," Hill told the committee.

Others stressed that age verification at the app‑store level would not, by itself, stop harms caused by platform design. Heather Andrews, a parent and advocate, argued the bill "creates the appearance of safety while leaving the true source of harm untouched," urging stronger limits on manipulative algorithms and direct platform accountability.

Privacy and implementation risks were a recurring concern. Julie Barrett said the bill "never defines what data must be collected" and is silent about storage, retention and security standards; David McGarry of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance warned that current age‑verification vendors often require scans of government IDs or biometric checks and that centralizing such data increases breach risk.

Sponsors and some supporters pushed back that app stores already collect birthdates and payment information and that the bill was tailored to address prior court objections. Casey Stefanski argued Georgia's draft was revised to address issues that led a Texas law to be enjoined and said many families would not need to submit new identity documents because app stores already hold relevant data.

The hearing included personal testimony about harms online: Sharon Winkler recounted that her son, Alex Pizer, "was 17 years old and a junior in high school when he died by suicide, influenced by cyberbullying and pro suicide content posted by algorithmic recommender systems," and urged the panel to pursue legislation to reduce algorithmic amplification of harmful material.

No vote was taken; the hearing was for testimony only. Sen. Kausser closed by acknowledging the bill is imperfect and invited stakeholders to meet and offer constructive alternatives. The committee adjourned without recording any formal action on SB 467 at this hearing.