Committee hears testimony on age‑appropriate design code aimed at limiting addictive features for minors
Loading...
Summary
Senators heard a detailed presentation and public testimony on SB 495, which would ban design features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, and late‑night push notifications for services 'reasonably likely' to be used by minors; the bill uses a 2% audience threshold to determine coverage and includes a private right of action, but opponents warned of First Amendment and vagueness risks.
Senate Bill 495 (LC640078S), presented to the Children and Families Committee, would create an "age‑appropriate design code" that limits platform design features shown by research to encourage compulsive use among minors.
Sponsor overview Senator Harrell, the sponsor, said he reduced the bill from 21 to eight pages and framed the measure as targeting design — not content moderation or bans on social media — to avoid First Amendment and federal conflict concerns. He described the bill as bipartisan and based on study‑committee findings about how engagement‑driven design harms children.
Key coverage and design restrictions Sponsor: The bill uses a coverage test that treats an online service as "reasonably likely to be accessed" by minors if at least 2% of its audience are minors, referencing a federal code from 1996 as the model for that threshold; the sponsor emphasized that this approach avoids requiring identity documents or face scans. The bill would forbid certain features for services meeting that threshold: use, sale, or retention of personal data for minors; algorithmic recommendation using personal data; push notifications between midnight and 6 a.m.; continuous autoplay; infinite scroll; intermittent variable rewards; and design that algorithmically connects minors with adults unless they were previously connected.
Enforcement and private right of action Senator Harrell said enforcement would be by the attorney general, but because AG enforcement alone may be 'inadequate,' the bill includes a private right of action. The sponsor also said default privacy settings for minors would be set to the highest level and that adults could opt in to features if they chose.
Public testimony and constitutional concerns Angela Flanagan (Georgia chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics) supported the bill, citing AAP research linking engagement‑driven features to disrupted sleep, mental‑health harms and lower academic achievement, and urging data deletion within 15 days for children. Sharon Winkler recounted a family tragedy, attributing her son's suicide to algorithmic recommendations and urged passage. Sarah Hunt Blackwell (ACLU of Georgia) praised the sponsor's work but warned the bill's definitions (e.g., "engrossing or irresistible") risk vagueness and First Amendment challenges; she cited a California law that was enjoined in litigation as precedent.
Outstanding questions and next steps Committee members sought clarification on what constitutes a "feed" and how coverage will be determined; the sponsor confirmed the threshold intends to rely on platform data. The hearing concluded with no recorded committee vote on SB 495 in the transcript; discussion and testimony will inform any future amendments.
Closing Senator Harrell closed by describing the harm he observed in children exposed to algorithmic feeds and urged action balanced with constitutional concerns. The committee proceeded to the final item on the agenda after the hearing.
