Kids Online Safety Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 5, 2026
Bottom line
The Kids Online Safety Act aims to enhance online safety for minors by imposing new duties, safeguards, and transparency requirements on covered platforms, while also giving users more control over algorithmic content delivery.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a duty of care for online platforms to prevent and mitigate harms to minors, mandates specific safeguards and parental tools, and requires transparency reports based on independent audits. It also prohibits market research on children and restricts it for minors without parental consent. Additionally, the bill requires online platforms using opaque algorithms to offer users an option to switch to an input-transparent algorithm and provides for federal and state enforcement.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is crucial for protecting children and teenagers from a range of online harms, including mental health issues, exploitation, and exposure to dangerous content. They contend it empowers parents with essential tools to manage their children's online experiences and holds platforms accountable for their design choices and content moderation practices.
Opponents contend
Critics contend that the bill's broad 'duty of care' could lead to over-censorship and stifle free speech, while its age determination requirements might compel platforms to collect more personal data, raising privacy concerns. They also argue that the technical demands for algorithmic transparency and safeguards could impose significant burdens on platforms, potentially hindering innovation and disproportionately affecting smaller companies.
The bill is moderately complex due to its technical definitions and detailed requirements, necessitating a careful read to fully grasp its implications.
Sec. 102
Duty of Care to Prevent Harm to Minors
This provision requires online platforms that minors are likely to use to exercise reasonable care in their design and implementation to prevent and mitigate specific harms to minors. These harms include eating disorders, compulsive usage, sexual exploitation, and the distribution of illegal substances, where such harms are foreseeable and linked to the platform's design features. It also clarifies that this duty cannot be enforced based on the viewpoint of First Amendment-protected speech.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this duty of care is essential to hold platforms accountable for the design choices that contribute to harms to minors, shifting responsibility from individual users to the companies that create the online environments.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that the 'reasonable care' standard is vague and could lead platforms to over-censor content to avoid liability, potentially infringing on free speech and stifling innovation. They also worry about the practical difficulty of foreseeing all potential harms.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire to protect vulnerable minors with concerns about free speech, platform autonomy, and the practical challenges of defining and enforcing a broad duty of care in a rapidly evolving online environment.
Sec. 103
Mandatory Safeguards and Parental Tools for Minors
This section mandates that covered platforms provide readily accessible and easy-to-use safeguards for minors, including tools to limit communication, restrict viewing of personal data, limit design features that encourage compulsive usage (like infinite scrolling), control personalized recommendations, and restrict geolocation sharing. For children under 13, these safeguards must be enabled by default. The bill also requires platforms to provide parents with tools to manage their child's settings, restrict purchases, and monitor/limit screen time, with clear notice to the minor when these tools are active.
Sec. 104
Transparency and Disclosure Requirements
This section mandates that covered platforms provide clear, conspicuous, and easy-to-understand notices to minors and parents. These notices must inform them about the platform's safeguards, parental tools, and how personalized recommendation systems use minors' personal data. For children under 13, verifiable parental consent is required for these disclosures. Additionally, all advertising displayed to minors must include clear labels identifying it as an advertisement or marketing material, including disclosures of commercial endorsements by other users.
Sec. 105
Independent Audits and Public Transparency Reports
This section mandates that large covered platforms (those with over 10 million monthly active users in the U.S. and predominantly providing user-generated content forums) must annually issue public reports based on independent, third-party audits. These reports must assess the platform's likelihood of being accessed by minors, commercial interests, minor usage statistics (time spent, languages), reports of harm received, efficacy of safeguards, and mitigation measures. Auditors are required to consult with parents and youth experts and consider various data sources.
Sec. 106
Restrictions on Market Research Involving Minors
This section prohibits covered platforms from conducting market or product-focused research on users they know to be children (under 13). For users known to be minors (under 17), such research is only permitted if the platform first obtains verifiable parental consent.
Sec. 109
Federal and State Enforcement Powers
This section grants enforcement authority for Title I violations to both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and State Attorneys General. Violations are treated as unfair or deceptive acts under the FTC Act, allowing the FTC to use its full enforcement powers. State Attorneys General can bring civil actions on behalf of their residents to enjoin violations, enforce compliance, or obtain damages, provided they give prior notice to the FTC. The FTC also has the right to intervene in state actions.
Sec. 202
Filter Bubble Transparency and User Control over Algorithms
This section makes it unlawful for online platforms using an 'opaque algorithm' (one that uses user-specific data not expressly provided by the user for content selection) to operate without providing users clear notice of its use and an easy option to switch to an 'input-transparent algorithm.' An input-transparent algorithm only uses data expressly provided by the user (like search terms or follows) or basic information (like language or city). The bill prohibits platforms from charging different prices or denying service based on a user's choice of algorithm.
A rule of construction clarifying that the duty of care cannot be enforced by a government entity based on the viewpoint of users' speech protected by the First Amendment.
Sec. 102(b)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to address potential constitutional concerns (First Amendment) and clarify the scope of the bill's enforcement, rather than an attempt to obscure the provision.
Case for: Supporters argue this provision is essential to prevent government overreach and ensure that efforts to protect minors do not inadvertently lead to censorship or restrictions on constitutionally protected speech on online platforms.
Case against: Critics might argue that this limitation could be interpreted broadly by platforms, potentially allowing them to avoid responsibility for content that, while technically 'speech,' contributes to the harms the bill seeks to prevent, making the duty of care less effective.
Estimated impact: Limits the scope of government enforcement actions against platforms, particularly regarding content moderation decisions that could be framed as viewpoint-based.
A rule of construction stating that nothing in Title I expands, limits the scope, or alters the meaning of Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230).
Sec. 112(a)(4)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative practice to clarify the relationship between a new bill and existing, often contentious, federal law (Section 230), rather than an attempt to hide its implications.
Case for: Proponents argue this clause is crucial to ensure the bill focuses solely on child safety and platform accountability without getting entangled in the broader, highly divisive debate over Section 230 reform, which could jeopardize its passage.
Case against: Critics of Section 230 might contend that by explicitly preserving its current meaning, the bill misses an opportunity to address platform liability for harmful content that contributes to the very harms it seeks to mitigate, thus limiting its overall effectiveness.
Estimated impact: Maintains the existing legal framework regarding online platform immunity for user-generated content, despite the new duties and enforcement mechanisms introduced by the bill.
The detailed definition of an 'input-transparent algorithm,' specifying what user-specific data can and cannot be used for content selection when a user opts for this algorithm.
Sec. 201(5)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining technical terms that are foundational to the bill's operative provisions, ensuring legal clarity for implementation, rather than an attempt to obscure its importance.
Case for: Proponents argue that this precise definition is essential to ensure platforms genuinely offer an 'unmanipulated' content experience, preventing them from using subtle forms of personalization that undermine the spirit of algorithmic transparency.
Case against: Opponents might argue that the distinctions between 'expressly provided' data and 'inferences' are technically complex and could be difficult for platforms to implement accurately, potentially leading to disputes and compliance challenges.
Estimated impact: Directly dictates the technical requirements for platforms offering an 'input-transparent algorithm' option, influencing how they collect and utilize user data for content ranking and personalization.