Kids Off Social Media Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Luna, Anna Paulina [R-FL-13]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 5, 2026
Bottom line
The bill seeks to protect children and teens from the perceived harms of social media by imposing age restrictions and algorithmic controls on platforms, and by limiting social media use in schools.
What it actually does
This bill, divided into two titles, primarily aims to restrict minors' access to social media and curb algorithmic influence. Title I prohibits social media platforms from allowing users under 13 to create or maintain accounts and bans personalized recommendation systems for all users under 17. Title II amends the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) to require elementary and secondary schools receiving federal broadband subsidies (E-rate) to implement policies and technology to prevent students from accessing social media on school-supported networks and devices.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is a necessary step to protect the mental health and developmental well-being of children and teens, shield them from harmful content and cyberbullying, and reduce the addictive nature of social media algorithms. They contend that limiting social media access in schools will improve student focus and academic performance, creating a safer and more conducive learning environment.
Opponents contend
Opponents may argue that the bill oversteps parental rights by dictating what children can access online, raises significant free speech concerns, and imposes an undue burden on social media platforms for age verification without clear, privacy-preserving methods. They might also contend that the school restrictions could limit digital literacy education and create unfunded mandates for educational institutions.
The bill is moderately complex due to its dual-title structure, detailed definitions, and specific enforcement mechanisms, requiring a careful read to understand its full scope and implications for social media platforms and educational institutions.
Sec. 103
Prohibition on Accounts for Children Under 13
This provision forbids social media platforms from permitting individuals they know to be under 13 years old from creating or maintaining an account or profile. If a platform discovers an existing account belongs to a child, it must terminate that account and immediately delete all associated personal data, while allowing the child 90 days to request a copy of their data.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for protecting young children from developmental harms, exposure to inappropriate content, and cyberbullying, aligning with existing child online protection efforts like COPPA.
Critics contend
Critics may contend that this infringes on parental rights to decide what their children access, could lead to children circumventing age gates, and places an impractical burden on platforms for age verification without clear, privacy-preserving methods.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the imperative of child protection with concerns about parental autonomy and the practical and privacy-related challenges of effective age verification for online services.
Sec. 104
Prohibition on Personalized Recommendation Systems for Children and Teens
This section prohibits social media platforms from using personalized recommendation systems to display content to users they know to be under 17 years old. Limited exceptions allow for the use of basic, non-identifying data like device type, language, and general location. For content that a teen has explicitly selected or subscribed to, it must be displayed in a chronological format.
Sec. 106
Federal and State Enforcement Mechanisms
This section establishes that violations of Title I will be treated as unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act, granting the FTC authority to enforce the provisions. Additionally, state attorneys general are empowered to bring civil actions on behalf of their state residents, with a requirement to notify the FTC, which then has the right to intervene in such actions.
Sec. 202
Social Media Restrictions for Schools Receiving E-rate Funding
This provision amends the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) to require elementary and secondary schools receiving E-rate discounts for internet access to certify that they have policies and technology in place to prevent students from accessing social media platforms on school-supported services, devices, or networks. Exceptions are made for teacher-led educational instruction and school-sanctioned learning management systems.
Sec. 203
Public Database of School Internet Safety Policies
This section mandates the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to establish an easily accessible, public database containing all internet safety policies submitted by schools and libraries under CIPA, including the new social media policies required by this bill. This aims to increase transparency regarding how educational institutions are implementing online safety measures.
The bill provides a detailed definition of 'social media platform,' specifying criteria such as being public-facing, collecting personal data, primarily deriving revenue from advertising or data sales, and serving as a community forum for user-generated content. Crucially, it includes a lengthy list of exclusions for services like e-commerce, teleconferencing, encyclopedias, cloud storage, video games, news sites with incidental chat, business reviews, educational platforms, email, wireless messaging, broadband, and VPNs.
Sec. 102(6)
Why it matters:Defining terms precisely is standard legislative practice to ensure legal clarity and prevent unintended application. However, the sheer length and detail of the exclusions can make it challenging for a reader to quickly grasp which services are, and are not, covered.
Case for: Proponents argue that a precise definition with clear exclusions is essential to target the specific platforms causing concern while avoiding overreach into other beneficial online services, thus minimizing unintended negative consequences for the broader internet ecosystem.
Case against: Critics might argue that the definition is either too narrow, potentially allowing new or evolving platforms to escape regulation, or too complex, leading to legal challenges over interpretation. The numerous exclusions could also be seen as creating loopholes or favoring certain types of online businesses.
Estimated impact: This definition fundamentally determines which online services are subject to the bill's age restrictions and algorithmic bans, thereby shaping the digital landscape for minors and the operational requirements for a vast array of online businesses.
This section clarifies the standard for determining whether a social media platform 'knows' a user's age, stating it can be 'fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances.' Crucially, it explicitly states that the bill does not require platforms to implement age gating or age verification functionality, nor does it require them to affirmatively collect age-related personal data they are not already collecting. It also restricts the use and retention of any personal data voluntarily collected for compliance purposes.
Sec. 105
Why it matters:This section attempts to address a critical tension between effective age-based regulation and privacy concerns. By placing it in a procedural section, it provides necessary guidance without being a primary 'headline' provision, which is common for such balancing acts in legislation.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision strikes a necessary balance, allowing for enforcement of age restrictions without mandating intrusive age verification methods that could harm user privacy or be technically burdensome for platforms. It aims to prevent platforms from willfully ignoring clear signs of underage users.
Case against: Critics might argue that without mandatory age verification, platforms can easily claim they 'don't know' a user's age, rendering the age restrictions largely ineffective. The 'fairly implied' standard could be vague, leading to inconsistent enforcement and potential loopholes that platforms could exploit.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly influences the practical enforceability of the bill's age restrictions and shapes the privacy implications for all users by limiting mandatory data collection requirements.