House committee advances bill that would require parental consent and curb "addictive" social-media features for child accounts

A Kentucky House committee on Friday advanced House Bill 227 after a day of testimony in which supporters described the measure as a narrowly tailored children’s safety bill and opponents warned it could run afoul of the U.S. Constitution and pose technical and privacy risks.

The bill, as amended by a committee substitute, would require covered social-media platforms to use age-estimation tools to block accounts for users the platform estimates are 15 or younger unless a verified parent provides consent. It also would restrict a set of features the bill labels "addictive features" for child accounts — including algorithmic, profile-based feeds, autoplay videos, push notifications and engagement badges — and applies to platforms meeting a $1,000,000,000 advertising-revenue threshold in at least one of the prior three years. The committee voted to advance the measure with a "favorable expression," sending it to the full House.

Sponsor Rep. Matt Lockett (39th District) framed the bill as a response to what he and witnesses described as growing evidence that algorithmic social media feeds and design features can be addictive and harmful to children’s mental health. "We can all see that social media's harm to children is well documented," Lockett said, citing other countries considering restrictions and saying platforms already estimate age for advertising purposes.

Supporters, including Chelsea Yeoman, counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, described the bill as content-neutral and protective of parents and First Amendment rights. "HB 227 says our children are not commodities," Yeoman told the committee, arguing the legislation would limit data-driven practices meant to "addict" young users.

Will Schroeder, senior counsel to Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman, said the AG's office backs the bill and stands ready to defend it in court. "Our attorneys have reviewed this bill and are encouraged that it is content neutral in every way and believe that it will pass a constitutional challenge should it face one," Schroeder said.

Opponents questioned both the legal footing and practical details. Ari Cohn, lead counsel for tech policy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said the bill risks conditioning minors' access to speech on parental consent and could in effect erect a government-imposed prior restraint. "Minors are entitled to significant First Amendment rights," Cohn warned, saying laws that require prior parental consent for protected activity have been rejected by courts.

Trade groups and industry representatives also flagged implementation problems. Amy Boss of NetChoice said the bill's age-estimation standard (the bill refers to an 80–90% confidence requirement) is not commercially achievable from behavioral data alone and could force platforms to collect far more sensitive personal information, including government IDs or biometrics. Tom Mann of the Computer and Communications Industry Association urged alternatives such as self-attestation and better parental tools to avoid privacy and cybersecurity risks.

Several witnesses pointed to a liability provision in the draft (described in testimony as Section 6) that would allow private damages for negligent violations, saying unclear compliance standards could drive platforms to over-remove lawful content. Opponents warned such uncertainty could have a chilling effect on speech and on smaller platforms.

Supporters disputed some technical worries and said large platforms already use age-estimation tools for advertising. Jesse Green, legal counsel for the Family Foundation, said the bill does not ban children from platforms but empowers parents "by giving them control over when and how their kids utilize social media."

During committee questioning, members pressed both sides on enforcement, scope and feasibility. Co-chair Rep. Lawrence asked how a state could enforce a law against national companies; Schroeder described multistate litigation and cooperation among attorneys general as a common enforcement route. Rep. Kulkarni asked whether the bill would help identify predators who misrepresent age; the sponsor said the bill focuses on age verification and safer settings for child accounts while platform responsibilities for content moderation and predator detection remain in place.

A roll call on the committee motion to advance the bill recorded multiple "yes" votes, several members offering brief explanations or reserving the right to change their vote on the House floor, and two members registering a "pass." Chair Gordon announced that House Bill 227, as amended by House Committee Substitute 1, "passes with favorable expression" and will proceed to the House floor.

The committee hearing included testimony from advocacy groups, industry trade associations and the attorney general's office. The measure’s next steps are consideration by the full Kentucky House, where sponsors and opponents indicated they may continue negotiating amendments.