In the United States, age verification laws for social media are ostensibly designed to limit young people's access to content deemed problematic such as pornography and to reduce the negative impact of social media on the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents. The purpose and effects of such laws are highly contested. Critics say that these laws suppress free speech by removing online anonymity. They have also stated the laws undermine safety, even for children, by increasing the exposure of user data to breaches, many sites require government IDs and biometric data (such as photographs), often transmitted or secured insecurely and without encryption. They also note that the measures are easily circumvented with VPNs, prompting some states such as Michigan and Wisconsin to propose legislation banning VPNs. == Laws == Many state legislatures have considered or enacted legislation pertaining to young people and social media. In 2022, California passed the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (AB 2273) requiring websites that are likely to be used by minors to estimate visitors' ages. On March 23, 2023, Utah Governor Spencer Cox signed SB 152 and HB 311, collectively known as the Utah Social Media Regulation Act, which requires age verification; if a user is under 18, they have to get parental consent before making an account on any social media platform. Few laws have gone into effect partially due to court challenges. === Arkansas === On April 11, 2023, Arkansas enacted SB 396, the Social Media Safety Act. The law requires certain social media companies that make over $100 million per year to verify the age of new users using a third party, and to obtain parental consent for users under 18. It excludes social media companies that allow a user to generate short video clips as well as games. The law was set to go in effect in September 2023. On June 29, 2023, NetChoice sued the Attorney General of Arkansas Tim Griffin in The Western District Court of Arkansas to block enforcement of the law, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). On July 7, 2023, NetChoice filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the law. On July 27, Griffin and Tony Allen filed briefs in opposition to the preliminary injunction. The preliminary injunction was granted by Judge Timothy L. Brooks on August 31, reasoning that the law was too vague, that NetChoice's members will suffer irreparable harm if the act goes into effect, and that age restrictions were ineffective. === California === ==== Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043) ==== On October 13, 2025, Gavin Newsom signed the Digital Age Assurance Act into law, which requires operating system providers to estimate the age of a user and into 4 age categories: Under 13 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 and over It comes into force on January 1, 2027. ==== California Age-Appropriate Design Code (AB 2273) ==== On September 15, 2022, California enacted AB 2273, the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act. Its most controversial provisions required online services that are likely to be used by those under 18 to estimate the age of child users with a "reasonable level of certainty". It also required these services to file Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) certifying whether an online product, service, or feature could harm children, including by exposing them to (potentially) harmful content. The law does not define harmful content. Before the law took effect, EFF sent a veto request to Newsom. On December 14, 2022, NetChoice sued. On September 18, 2023, Federal Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted a preliminary injunction. The 9th Circuit on August 16, 2024, affirmed the injunction against the DPIA section of the law and sent the rest back, because the argument in the 9th circuit was mainly focused on the DPIA. ==== Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act (SB 976) ==== On September 20, 2024, California enacted SB 976, Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction. The law requires online platforms to exclude those under 18 from "addictive" feeds unless parental consent is given. It requires online platforms to not send notifications to someone under 18 between 12:00 AM and 6:00 AM without parental consent or between 8:00 am – 3:00 pm without parental consent from September through May (the law does not define what a "notification" is). The law took effect on January 1, 2025, with age verification required as of December 31, 2026. On November 12, NetChoice sued in the Northern District and before Judge Edward John Davila. On December 31, the judge blocked the sections of SB 976 that required time-of-day restrictions. He also enjoined requirements to report on the number of minor users as well as the number of parental assents to access an addictive feed. He did not block the age assurance requirement or blocking minors from seeing addictive feeds without parental consent. His reasoning was that age assurance that runs in the background does not restrict adult access to speech and that regulating feeds does not violate the first amendment because it was content neutral and did not remove any content. On January 1, 2025, NetChoice filed a motion to fully block the law as part of its appeal to the Ninth Circuit. NetChoice claimed that the court erred in its reading of Supreme Court case Moody v. NetChoice by mainly focusing on the concurring opinions and not the deciding opinion. The same day Davila decreed that California's response to NetChoice was due by 11:59 pm. California responded the same day to NetChoice's motion, claiming that the court should not block the full law, claiming that NetChoice had misread Moody v. NetChoice and that NetChoice's members would not likely face any harm from the act because members such as X (formerly Twitter) already offer their members feeds that were not personalized. On January 2, Davila granted NetChoice's motion to block the full law during the appeals process by delaying the effective date of the law from January 1, 2025, to February 1, 2025. That day NetChoice appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. === Florida === On January 5, 2024, Tyler Sirois introduced HB 1, which would ban anyone under 16 from using any social media platform and would require platforms to verify the age of users. After the bill passed, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) published a blog post opposing the bill for violating the rights of minors and adults. The bill was vetoed by Governor Ron DeSantis on March 1, 2024, claiming that the State Legislature was going to enact a better alternative. HB 3 then decreased the minimum age from 16 to 14, allowing minors aged 14 and 15 to make social media accounts with parental consent. Florida enacted it on March 25, 2024, and took effect on January 1, 2025. A surge of 1,150% in VPN demand in Florida was detected after the law took effect. VPN services provide the ability to circumvent the law. On October 28, 2024, NetChoice and Computer and Communications Industry Association sued. The Judge is Chief Judge Mark E. Walker. On February 28, 2025, arguments were heard on the motion for a preliminary injunction. Walker seemed skeptical of Florida's argument that the law did not violate the first amendment and said the State would have a hard time to justify a complete ban of youth under 14 from social media. On March 13, Walker denied the motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs had not proven that at least one of their members had at least 10 percent of their users under 16 use their platform for at least 2 hours per day. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction which was granted on June 3, for failing First Amendment Intermediate scrutiny. The injunction left in force the provision that allowed parents to request termination of their child's social media account. === Georgia === On April 23, 2024, Georgia enacted SB 351, which became Act 463. Act 463 requires platforms to verify the age of users of social media platforms and require users under 16 years of age to have parental consent before creating an account. It also requires schools to ban all social media platforms, including YouTube. Before the law was signed NetChoice sent a veto request to Kemp claiming the law was unconstitutional and was bad policy. After the bill was enacted, ACLU and NetChoice criticized the bill. NetChoice sued two months before the law's effective date. The Judge is Amy Totenberg. the suit claims that the law violates the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments. === Louisiana === ==== Secure Online Child Interaction and Age Limitation Act (SB 162) ==== On June 28, 2023, Louisiana enacted SB 162, the Secure Online Child Interaction and Age Limitation Act. It requires social media platforms to verify user age and get parental consent for users under 16, prohibits account holders under 1
Read more →
