Technical corrections only. The diff updates the bill's legislative status to reflect that it was reported by committee, including a calendar number and additional sponsors. No substantive policy changes were made to the bill's text.
Kids Off Social Media Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Schatz, Brian [D-HI]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 30, 2025
Bottom line
This bill seeks to safeguard children and teens from the perceived harms of social media by imposing age-based access restrictions, limiting algorithmic exposure, and requiring schools to block social media on their internet-subsidized networks.
What it actually does
This bill, composed of two titles, aims to restrict social media access for minors. Title I, the "Kids Off Social Media Act," prohibits individuals under 13 from creating or maintaining social media accounts and bans personalized recommendation systems for users under 17. Title II, the "Eyes on the Board Act of 2025," amends the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) to require schools receiving E-rate funding to implement technology protection measures to block student access to social media platforms on school networks and devices.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is a critical step to protect the mental health and well-being of children and teens, reducing their exposure to addictive algorithms, inappropriate content, and online bullying. They contend that restricting access for the youngest users and limiting personalized feeds for teens will create a safer online environment and improve focus in educational settings.
Opponents contend
Critics raise concerns about the practical enforceability of age restrictions without mandating intrusive age verification, which could lead to privacy issues or drive underage users to less regulated platforms. They also argue that restricting personalized recommendations could diminish the user experience and that school blocking requirements might hinder digital literacy education or impose undue administrative burdens.
The bill is moderately complex due to its dual approach and detailed definitions, but its structure with a table of contents makes it navigable for an informed reader within a reasonable timeframe.
Sec. 103, Title I
Prohibition on Accounts for Children Under 13
This provision prohibits social media platforms from allowing individuals under the age of 13 to create or maintain an account or profile. If a platform knows a user is a child, it must terminate their existing account and delete all associated personal data, while providing a 90-day window for the child to request a copy of their data.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential for protecting young children from content and interactions that are developmentally inappropriate, reducing risks of online exploitation, cyberbullying, and negative mental health impacts.
Critics contend
Critics contend that this provision raises significant challenges for platforms in verifying age without infringing on privacy, and may lead children to circumvent restrictions using less secure methods or platforms.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the imperative to protect young children with concerns about privacy, parental autonomy in managing their children's online access, and the practical difficulties of age verification.
Sec. 104, Title I
Prohibition on Personalized Recommendation Systems for Under 17s
This section prohibits social media platforms from using personalized recommendation systems to display content to users they know are under the age of 17. Limited exceptions allow for recommendations based on non-personal data like device type, language, city, or the user's age. Chronological feeds of content explicitly followed by a teen are still permitted.
Sec. 105, Title I
Standard for Implied Knowledge of User Age and Privacy Protections
This section clarifies how regulators will determine if a social media platform 'knows' a user's age, relying on 'knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances.' Crucially, it explicitly states that platforms are not required to implement age gating or age verification functionalities, nor are they required to collect new personal data regarding user age for compliance. Any data voluntarily collected for compliance must be limited in use and retention.
Sec. 106, Title I
Federal and State Enforcement Powers
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 enforcement authority. Additionally, it authorizes State Attorneys General to bring civil actions as parens patriae on behalf of their residents to enjoin violations, enforce compliance, and obtain damages, with provisions for notifying and allowing intervention by the FTC.
Sec. 202, Title II
Social Media Blocking for E-rate Funded Schools
This provision amends the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) to require elementary and secondary schools receiving E-rate discounts to certify that they have policies and technology protection measures in place to prevent students from accessing social media platforms on school-supported services, devices, and networks. Exceptions are made for district-sanctioned learning management systems and teacher use for educational instruction.
Sec. 203, Title II
Public Database for School Internet Safety Policies
This section amends CIPA to require schools to submit copies of their Internet safety policies to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC is then mandated to establish an easily accessible, public database containing these submitted policies.
This subsection provides an extensive list of 12 types of online services and platforms that are explicitly excluded from the definition of a 'social media platform.' These exclusions include e-commerce sites, teleconferencing services, crowd-sourced reference guides, cloud storage, video games, news sites with incidental chat, business review sites, educational platforms, email, wireless messaging, broadband internet access services, and VPNs.
Sec. 102(6)(B), Title I
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to precisely define the scope of a bill and prevent unintended consequences for a wide array of online services. However, the sheer length and detail of the exclusions make it easy to overlook the significant limitations on the bill's applicability.
Case for: Supporters argue that these exclusions are crucial to ensure the bill targets only platforms primarily designed for user-generated social interaction, avoiding over-regulation of essential online services that are not the primary focus of concern regarding youth social media use.
Case against: Critics might contend that some excluded platforms, such as certain gaming platforms or news sites with interactive features, can still pose risks to children and teens, and that these exclusions create potential loopholes or limit the bill's comprehensive impact.
Estimated impact: Significantly narrows the universe of online services subject to the age restrictions and algorithmic feed bans in Title I, focusing the regulatory burden on a specific subset of social media companies.
This subsection explicitly states that nothing in Title I should be construed to require a social media platform to implement age gating or age verification functionality, nor to affirmatively collect any personal data regarding the age of users that the platform is not already collecting in the normal course of business.
Sec. 105(b), Title I
Why it matters:This provision likely represents a compromise to address significant privacy concerns raised by civil liberties groups and the technical and cost burdens expressed by tech companies regarding mandatory age verification. Including it here allows the bill to move forward without mandating potentially intrusive data collection.
Case for: Supporters argue that this protects user privacy by preventing platforms from being forced to collect sensitive age verification data, which could create new vulnerabilities or surveillance mechanisms. It aims to achieve child protection without sacrificing broader privacy rights.
Case against: Critics contend that by not requiring age verification, the bill's age restrictions for under-13s and algorithmic feed bans for under-17s become significantly harder to enforce. Platforms could more easily claim they lack 'knowledge' of a user's age, undermining the bill's core purpose.
Estimated impact: Significantly influences the practical enforceability of Title I's age-based restrictions, shifting the burden of proof onto regulators to demonstrate a platform's 'implied knowledge' rather than requiring platforms to proactively verify age.
This section outlines the relationship of Title I to other laws, stating that it preempts conflicting State laws only to the extent of the conflict, but explicitly allows States to enact laws providing 'greater protection' to children or teens. It also clarifies that Title I does not affect the application of FERPA, COPPA, or Section 18(h) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
Sec. 107, Title I
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clarify the interplay between federal and state authority and to avoid unintended conflicts with existing statutes. The 'greater protection' clause is a common way to establish a federal floor while preserving state flexibility.
Case for: Supporters argue that this clause strikes an appropriate balance of federalism, establishing a national baseline of protection while allowing states to innovate and provide stronger safeguards for their residents if they choose. It also ensures the bill doesn't inadvertently undermine existing privacy laws.
Case against: Critics might argue that allowing states to enact 'greater protection' laws could lead to a fragmented and complex regulatory environment for social media platforms, making compliance challenging across different jurisdictions, despite the federal floor.
Estimated impact: Defines the scope of federal preemption, allowing for a potential patchwork of state laws that offer stronger protections than the federal standard, and ensures consistency with existing federal privacy statutes.