SCREEN Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 11, 2025
Bottom line
This bill mandates age verification technology for online platforms hosting content deemed "harmful to minors" to protect children, building on past legislative attempts that were largely struck down by the Supreme Court.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that interactive computer services regularly engaged in creating, hosting, or making available content deemed "harmful to minors" must implement technology verification measures. These measures are designed to ensure that users of the platform are not minors and to prevent minors from accessing such content. The bill also sets requirements for the verification process, including data security protocols, and outlines enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill addresses a compelling government interest in protecting minors from online pornography, which has proven psychological harms, and that current filtering software is ineffective. They contend that advancements in age verification technology now offer a least restrictive means to achieve this goal, as suggested by the Supreme Court in the past.
Opponents contend
Opponents typically argue that such age verification mandates infringe on free speech rights for adults, raise significant privacy concerns due to the collection of sensitive personal data, and may not be truly "least restrictive" given the potential for overblocking or circumvention. They may also question the technical feasibility and cost burden on platforms.
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 establishes the official short title of the Act as the "Shielding Children's Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net Act" or the "SCREEN Act." This is the common name by which the bill would be known and referred to in public discourse and legislative proceedings.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a clear and descriptive short title helps in public discourse and legislative tracking, immediately conveying the bill's intent to protect children.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against short titles, as they are primarily for identification.
Section 2
Congressional Findings and Purpose
This section lays out Congress's rationale for the bill, citing past legislative attempts to protect minors from online pornography, Supreme Court rulings on these attempts, the ineffectiveness of current filtering software, and the recognized harms of pornography exposure to minors. It concludes with a Sense of Congress that protecting minors is a compelling government interest and that age verification is the least restrictive means to achieve it.
Section 3
Key Definitions for the Act
This section defines critical terms used throughout the Act, including "child pornography," "minor," "Commission" (FTC), "covered platform," "harmful to minors," "information content provider," "interactive computer service," "sexual act," "sexual contact," "technology verification measure," and "technology verification measure data." The definition of "covered platform" is particularly important, specifying which entities are subject to the bill's requirements, and "harmful to minors" outlines the content that triggers the age verification mandate.
Section 4
Mandate for Age Verification Technology
This section is the core of the bill, requiring "covered platforms" to adopt and utilize technology verification measures within one year of the Act's enactment. These measures must ensure users are not minors and prevent minors from accessing content harmful to them. It specifies that a simple "I am not a minor" checkbox is insufficient, platforms must make their verification process public, and IP addresses (including VPNs) must be subject to verification unless the user is outside the U.S. Platforms can choose their specific technology but remain liable for compliance. It also mandates data security for collected verification data and limits its retention.
Section 5
Expert Consultation for Enforcement Standards
This section requires the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to consult with various experts when enforcing the age verification requirements. These experts include individuals with experience in computer science, software engineering, online child safety advocacy, services for child exploitation victims, consumer protection, online privacy, technology verification measure product suppliers, and data security/cryptography. This consultation is specifically for determining applicable standards and metrics for age verification.
Section 6
FTC Audits and Guidance
This section mandates the FTC to conduct regular audits of covered platforms to ensure compliance with age verification requirements. It requires the FTC to make audit terms public, establish a process for platforms to submit necessary compliance documents, and prescribe what materials are needed for compliance. The FTC must also issue guidance within 180 days of enactment to assist platforms, with a caveat that this guidance does not confer rights or bind the Commission, and enforcement actions must be based on specific violations of the Act, not just inconsistency with guidance.
Section 7
Enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission
This section stipulates that a violation of the age verification requirements (Section 4) will be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act. It grants the FTC the same powers, means, jurisdiction, and duties for enforcement as provided under the FTC Act, and subjects violators to the same penalties and privileges/immunities. It also clarifies that this Act does not limit the FTC's existing authority.
Section 8
Government Accountability Office Report
This section requires the Comptroller General of the United States (GAO) to submit a report to Congress within two years after the age verification requirements take effect. The report must analyze the effectiveness of the measures, compliance rates, data security practices, behavioral/economic/psychological/societal effects of implementation, and provide recommendations to the FTC for improving enforcement and to Congress for legislative improvements.
Section 9
Severability
This standard legal clause states that if any provision of the Act, or its application to any person or circumstance, is found to be unconstitutional, the remaining provisions and their applications will not be affected and will remain in force. This ensures that the core objectives of the Act can still be pursued even if a specific part is invalidated.
The definition of "covered platform" includes entities that are interactive computer services engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, or that purposefully avail themselves of the U.S. market, and for which it is in the regular course of trade or business to create, host, or make available content "harmful to minors" with the objective of earning a profit, regardless of whether that activity is the sole source of income.
Section 3(3)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms, but its implications are far-reaching, determining which entities are subject to the bill's mandates.
Case for: Proponents argue that a precise and broad definition of "covered platform" is necessary to ensure that all relevant online services, not just dedicated adult content sites, are held accountable for protecting minors, preventing loopholes.
Case against: Critics may argue that this broad definition could inadvertently capture a wide range of platforms that are not primarily focused on adult content but may host user-generated material, imposing undue burdens and potentially leading to overblocking.
Estimated impact: Potentially impacts a significant number of online platforms beyond traditional adult content providers, including those hosting user-generated content, depending on interpretation.
A rule of construction stating that nothing in Section 4 (Technology Verification Measures) shall be construed to require a covered platform to submit to the Commission any information that identifies, is linked to, or is reasonably linkable to a user of the covered platform or a device that identifies, is linked to, or is reasonably linkable to a user.
Section 4(e)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative technique to clarify the scope of a mandate and address potential privacy concerns without altering the main operative text. It is a deliberate attempt to limit data sharing with the government.
Case for: Proponents argue this clause is essential for protecting user privacy, ensuring that while platforms must verify age, they are not compelled to share sensitive personal identification data directly with the government, thus mitigating potential surveillance concerns.
Case against: Some critics might argue that while it limits direct submission to the FTC, the underlying collection of sensitive data by platforms for verification still poses privacy risks, and this clause does not fully address those concerns.
Estimated impact: Significantly limits the data that the FTC can demand from platforms during audits, reducing the risk of government-held databases of user identification information.
Limitations on guidance issued by the Commission, stating that such guidance shall not confer any rights, bind the Commission or any person, and that enforcement actions must allege a specific violation of a provision of this Act, not merely inconsistency with the guidance.
Section 6(b)(2)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative practice to define the legal authority of agency guidance, ensuring that the statute itself, rather than interpretive documents, remains the primary basis for enforcement. It can be seen as a check on agency power.
Case for: Proponents argue this clause prevents the FTC from overstepping its statutory authority through guidance, ensuring that platforms are only held accountable for direct violations of the Act, providing clarity and due process.
Case against: Critics might contend that by limiting the binding nature of guidance, it could create uncertainty for platforms attempting to comply, as they may not have clear, legally authoritative interpretations of complex provisions from the FTC.
Estimated impact: Affects the legal risk profile for covered platforms, requiring them to focus compliance efforts on the statutory text rather than relying solely on FTC guidance, and potentially increasing legal costs for interpretation.