16 & Up Social Media Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 10, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to restrict access to social media for individuals under 16 by imposing age verification and account termination requirements on platforms, enforced by federal and state authorities.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits certain online platforms, defined as "covered platforms," from allowing individuals under the age of 16 ("covered users") to create or maintain accounts. It mandates that platforms identify and terminate existing accounts of known underage users, delete their personal data (while providing a 90-day window for users to request a copy), and establish an appeal process for age determinations. The bill grants enforcement authority to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and State Attorneys General, and includes provisions for preemption of conflicting state laws while allowing for stronger state protections.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is a critical measure to protect children from the documented harms of social media, including negative impacts on mental health, exposure to inappropriate content, and cyberbullying, by establishing a clear age limit and holding platforms accountable for enforcement. They believe it empowers parents and creates a safer online environment for minors.
Opponents contend
Opponents may contend that such a broad ban infringes on the free speech rights of minors and parents, limits access to valuable educational and social resources, and raises significant privacy concerns due to the necessity of robust age verification. They might also argue that the bill places an undue and costly burden on platforms and that less restrictive measures could achieve similar protective goals.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 1
Short Title
This section formally names the legislation as the "16 & Up Social Media Act." This provides a concise and easily identifiable name for the bill, reflecting its primary objective of setting an age floor for social media use.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a clear and descriptive short title helps communicate the bill's intent to the public and facilitates legislative tracking.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against short titles, as they are primarily administrative.
Tradeoffs
None apparent for this provision itself.
Section 2(a)(1)
Prohibition on New Accounts for Under-16s
This provision prohibits "covered platforms" from allowing any individual they know to be under the age of 16 ("covered user") to create or maintain an account or profile. This establishes a minimum age of 16 for new users on specified social media platforms.
Section 2(a)(2)
Mandated Termination of Existing Under-16 Accounts
This provision requires covered platforms to identify existing accounts belonging to users they know are under 16 within 60 days of the bill's enactment. Platforms must then notify these users within 180 days and terminate their accounts within 30 days of notification, ensuring existing underage users are removed.
Section 2(a)(3)
Personal Data Deletion and User Access Rights
Upon termination of an underage user's account, platforms must immediately delete all personal data collected from or submitted by that user. However, for 90 days following termination, the user retains the right to request a readable, portable, and machine-readable copy of their data, which the platform must provide within 45 days of the request.
Section 2(a)(4)
User Appeal Process for Age Determinations
Before implementing account terminations, covered platforms must establish a clear and accessible review process allowing users to appeal an age determination. This process must review user-submitted evidence, make a determination within 5 days, limit data collection to only what is strictly necessary for age verification, and prohibit the use or retention of submitted data for other purposes.
Section 2(b) and 2(c)
Federal and State Enforcement Powers
Violations of this Act are treated as unfair or deceptive acts under the Federal Trade Commission Act, granting the FTC full enforcement powers. State Attorneys General are also authorized to bring civil actions (parens patriae) on behalf of their residents, with a requirement to notify the FTC and limitations if a federal action is already pending.
Section 2(d)
Preemption and State Law Relationship
This section states that the Act preempts any conflicting state laws, rules, or regulations. However, it explicitly carves out exceptions, stating it does not preempt state laws regarding contract, tort, or product liability, nor does it prohibit states from enacting or enforcing any law that provides *greater* protection to covered users.
Section 2(g)
Key Definitions
This subsection defines critical terms such as "covered platform" (a publicly available internet service with searchable usernames, user-generated content as primary purpose, design features promoting engagement, and personalized advertising/recommendations), "covered user" (an individual under 16), and "design feature" (features encouraging increased use, like infinite scrolling, notifications, personalized recommendations). It also defines "know" or "knows" as "to know or should have known."
Defines "know" or "knows" to mean "to know or should have known" regarding an individual's age.
Section 2(g)(6)
Why it matters:While defining terms in a dedicated section is standard legislative practice, the specific wording of this definition significantly expands platform responsibility, which might be less prominent when placed at the bill's conclusion.
Case for: Supporters argue that this standard is crucial for effective enforcement, preventing platforms from feigning ignorance about underage users and compelling them to proactively implement reasonable measures to identify and prevent access by minors, thereby strengthening child protection.
Case against: Critics contend that the "should have known" standard places an excessive and potentially unfeasible burden on platforms, possibly requiring intrusive age verification methods or leading to over-blocking of users to avoid liability, even if they genuinely don't know a user's age, raising privacy concerns.
Estimated impact: Significantly increases the burden of proof and operational responsibility on platforms regarding age verification, potentially leading to the adoption of more stringent (and possibly privacy-invasive) age-gating technologies across the industry.
Specifies that a platform shall not be considered a "covered platform" based on the content hosted or on any basis other than the platform's use of a "design feature."
Section 2(f)
Why it matters:This is a clarifying clause, often placed in such sections to prevent misinterpretation. Its placement helps to narrow the bill's focus, which is a key aspect of its legislative strategy.
Case for: Proponents argue this clarifies that the bill targets specific platform *mechanisms* (design features promoting engagement and personalized recommendations) rather than the *content* itself, addressing concerns about free speech and content moderation and focusing the bill on addictive design.
Case against: Critics might argue that this distinction is artificial, as content and design features are often intertwined in user experience. They might also contend that by focusing solely on design features, the bill misses other potential harms related to content exposure for minors, creating a loophole.
Estimated impact: Narrows the applicability of the bill, potentially excluding platforms that host user-generated content but do not employ the specified "design features" or personalized recommendation systems, thereby limiting its reach.
Enumerates specific "design features" that encourage increased frequency of use or time spent by covered users, including infinite scrolling, autoplay, rewards/incentives, notifications, badges, appearance-altering filters, and personalized recommendation systems.
Section 2(g)(4)(B)
Why it matters:Detailed enumerations are often placed in definitions for precision and legal clarity, but the specific examples are highly operative and dictate the concrete changes platforms would need to make, making their placement somewhat obscure.
Case for: Supporters argue that explicitly listing these features provides clear guidance to platforms on what constitutes a problematic design element for minors, allowing them to adapt their services and focus on mitigating these specific addictive mechanisms.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this list is either too narrow (missing future problematic features) or too broad (encompassing features that are not inherently harmful or are essential for platform functionality). They may also argue that some features, like notifications, are common across many applications and not solely problematic for social media.
Estimated impact: Directly mandates changes to user interface and engagement strategies for covered platforms, particularly those targeting or used by minors, requiring significant redesign and development efforts.