Committee advances social‑media bill aiming to put parents in control while stakeholders raise constitutional and technical concerns
Loading...
Summary
HB 2991 was advanced after hours of testimony. The sponsor said the bill is intended to give parents tools to protect children under 14 and create age‑verification and parental‑consent pathways; industry groups warned of First Amendment and cybersecurity risks and urged alternative approaches (education and app‑store verification). The committee returned the bill with a do‑pass recommendation and a commitment to continue stakeholder work.
After extended testimony that at times became technical and contentious, the House Commerce Committee returned HB 29‑91 with a do‑pass recommendation while signaling continued negotiation. The bill would create age‑targeted protections for minors on social media and require platforms or app stores to provide parental verification and consent mechanisms for defined classes of apps. The sponsor said the intent is to address growing concerns about youth mental health, cyberbullying, grooming and unsupervised access to highly engaging platforms.
Proponents included parent groups and national advocates for online safety who urged concrete parental controls and app‑store solutions. Multiple witnesses cited recent state efforts and models (Utah, Alabama, Texas) and asked for enforceable parental‑consent mechanisms and stronger accountability for platforms. Opponents — notably trade groups such as NetChoice and TechNet and platform safety leads — warned that age‑based restrictions raise serious constitutional issues, that age verification creates privacy and cybersecurity risks, and that ill‑crafted mandates can push teens to less‑regulated services or drive verification data breaches.
Meta’s head of safety policy described the company’s teen account defaults and said industry efforts are underway; Meta recommended a centralized app‑store verification model as more practical and privacy‑protective than per‑app verification. NetChoice and TechNet pointed to pending federal litigation in other states and to court rulings that have enjoined similar statutes.
Committee members debated the threshold ages and whether a private right of action should be included; the sponsor said those issues remain open for amendment. The bill was advanced to the floor with a sponsor commitment to host further stakeholder meetings and return with clarified language on age thresholds, enforcement and technical feasibility.
What happens next: Members said they will continue to meet with platform representatives, civil‑liberties groups and parent advocates to refine technical mechanisms, enforcement and constitutional scope before floor action.