Stop the Scroll Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Britt, Katie Boyd [R-AL]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 14, 2026
Bottom line
The bill mandates prominent, recurring mental health warning labels on social media and anonymous content sharing platforms, aiming to inform users of risks and influence behavior while empowering federal and state enforcement.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), with the concurrence of the Surgeon General, implement a mental health warning label on social media platforms and anonymous content sharing platforms. These labels must be clearly displayed each time a U.S. user accesses the platform and reappear after every hour of continuous use, providing warnings about potential negative mental health impacts and access to federal resources. The bill grants enforcement authority to both the FTC and State Attorneys General.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that social media use is associated with significant risks to mental health, as highlighted by the Surgeon General's advisory, and that product warning labels are a proven public health tool to increase awareness and influence behavior. They contend that the government has a compelling interest in ensuring users make informed decisions about platform usage, especially given the addictive nature of algorithms.
Opponents contend
Opponents, particularly from the tech industry, may argue that mandating such intrusive warnings constitutes government overreach into platform design and could stifle innovation. They might also contend that constant warnings could lead to 'warning fatigue,' making them ineffective, or that the bill's broad definitions could encompass platforms not primarily intended for social interaction, imposing undue regulatory burdens.
The bill is concise and clearly written, allowing for a quick and comprehensive understanding of its provisions.
Section 1
Short Title
This section establishes 'Stop the Scroll Act' as the official short title for this legislation. This title provides a concise and memorable name for the bill, facilitating public and legislative discussion and identification.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a clear and impactful short title helps to communicate the bill's purpose and galvanize support for its objectives.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the short title of a bill, as it is primarily for identification purposes.
Section 2
Congressional Findings on Social Media Harms
This section outlines Congress's rationale for the bill, citing associations between social media use and mental health risks, including bullying and child sexual exploitation. It emphasizes the effectiveness of warning labels, the addictive nature of platform algorithms, the government's interest in informed user decisions, and the Surgeon General's advisory warning about social media's harms.
Section 3
Key Definitions
This section defines critical terms used throughout the Act, such as 'anonymous content sharing platform,' 'Commission' (Federal Trade Commission), 'covered platform' (encompassing social media platforms and anonymous content sharing platforms), 'covered platform provider,' 'Secretary' (Secretary of Health and Human Services), and 'user.' These definitions determine the scope of entities and individuals subject to the bill's requirements.
Section 4(a)
Mandatory Mental Health Warning Label Display
This provision requires covered platform providers to clearly and conspicuously display a mental health warning label each time a user physically located in the United States accesses the platform. The label must remain visible until the user acknowledges the potential for harm and chooses to proceed, and then reappear after each hour of continuous use by that user.
Section 4(b)-(c)
Warning Label Content and Display Standards
This section mandates that the warning label must inform users of potential negative mental health impacts and provide access to Federal resources, such as the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. It also prohibits platforms from including the label exclusively via hyperlink or in terms and conditions, obscuring its visibility with extraneous information, or allowing users to disable it (except for the initial acknowledgment and hourly redisplay).
Section 4(d)-(e)
Regulatory Promulgation and Periodic Review
This section directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), with the concurrence of the Surgeon General, to promulgate regulations containing appropriate requirements for the warning label within 180 days of the Act's enactment. It further mandates that these regulations be reviewed and revised at least every five years to address changes in technology, market conditions, and medical science.
Section 5(a)
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Authority
This section stipulates that any violation of the Act or its regulations by a covered platform provider will be treated as an unfair or deceptive act under the Federal Trade Commission Act. It grants the FTC broad enforcement powers, including jurisdiction over non-profit organizations and common carriers, which are typically exempt from some FTC oversight. The FTC is also mandated to promulgate rules for enforcement.
Section 5(b)
State Attorney General Enforcement Authority
This section authorizes State Attorneys General, and other authorized state consumer protection officers, to bring civil actions against covered platform providers for violations of the Act, acting as *parens patriae* on behalf of state residents. It allows for civil penalties based on the duration of non-compliance or the number of affected users, capped by Federal Trade Commission Act penalty limits. The provision includes requirements for states to notify the FTC and allows for FTC intervention or preemption of state actions.
Section 6
Effective Date
This section specifies that the Act will take effect one year after its date of enactment. This provides a grace period for the Federal Trade Commission and the Surgeon General to promulgate the necessary regulations and for covered platform providers to implement the required warning labels and compliance mechanisms.
Establishes extraterritorial jurisdiction for any violation of this Act if it involves an individual in the United States or if any act in furtherance of the violation was committed in the United States.
Section 5(c)
Why it matters:While common in modern legislation addressing digital services, its placement might also serve to de-emphasize its broad reach to avoid immediate international pushback or to present it as a technical necessity rather than a policy choice.
Case for: Supporters argue this provision is essential to prevent foreign-based platforms from evading U.S. regulations, ensuring that all platforms serving U.S. users are held to the same standards regardless of their physical location, thereby protecting American citizens.
Case against: Critics might argue that asserting extraterritorial jurisdiction can lead to complex international legal disputes, conflicts of law, and challenges in enforcement against entities primarily governed by other national laws, potentially creating diplomatic friction.
Estimated impact: Significantly broadens the scope of entities subject to the Act, potentially impacting all global social media and anonymous content sharing platforms that have users or conduct activities within the United States.