HR-7433-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
What it does
This bill would do three things. First, it would prohibit social media platforms from allowing children under 13 to create or maintain accounts, and would require deletion of those children's personal data. Second, it would ban platforms from using personalized recommendation algorithms (systems that suggest content based on a user's personal data) for any user under 17, with limited exceptions for basic signals like device type or location. Third, it would require K-12 schools receiving federally subsidized internet service (E-rate funding) to block student access to social media platforms on school networks and devices, or lose that funding.
Who benefits
Children under 13 and their parents, who would gain a federal floor of protection against platforms collecting minors' data. Teens under 17, who would no longer be subject to algorithmically driven content feeds. Schools seeking a federal mandate to justify existing or new social media blocking policies. Mental health advocates and researchers who argue algorithmic feeds contribute to youth mental health harms. Competing platforms or services that are carved out of the bill's definition of "social media" (e.g., video game platforms, educational tools, e-commerce sites). State attorneys general, who gain new enforcement authority.
Who is hurt
Major social media platforms (Meta, TikTok, Snap, YouTube, X, etc.) that would face compliance costs, potential loss of younger user bases, and FTC enforcement risk. Advertisers who target younger demographics. Children under 13 and teens who use social media for peer connection, creative expression, or access to information, and who may lose access to those tools. Families who rely on social media for communication across generations. Schools with limited IT budgets that may struggle to implement required filtering technology. Smaller or niche platforms that may lack resources to build compliant age-detection systems. Researchers and educators who use social media platforms for legitimate instructional purposes, though teacher use is explicitly exempted.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that social media platforms have knowingly profited from addictive, algorithmically driven content feeds targeting children, contributing to a documented youth mental health crisis — including a 57% increase in adolescent depression rates between 2011 and 2019 identified by the CDC. They contend the bill addresses a specific, measurable harm: personalized recommendation systems that exploit minors' psychological vulnerabilities for commercial gain. Supporters also note the bill is carefully scoped — it does not ban teens from social media entirely, does not require invasive age verification, and explicitly preserves teacher use and educational tools, making it a targeted and proportionate response.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that without a mandatory age verification mechanism, the bill's prohibition is largely unenforceable — platforms cannot reliably identify underage users without collecting more personal data, creating a paradox where compliance requires the very surveillance the bill seeks to limit. They contend the algorithm ban for under-17s raises serious First Amendment concerns under Moody v. NetChoice (2024), which held that platforms' editorial and curation decisions are protected speech, meaning government-mandated changes to how platforms present content to users may constitute compelled speech. Critics also argue the E-rate funding condition could effectively defund school internet access in under-resourced districts that lack the IT infrastructure to implement compliant filtering systems.
Constitutional context
Two constitutional provisions are directly relevant. First, the First Amendment: the Supreme Court held in Moody v. NetChoice (2024) that platforms' content moderation and curation decisions are protected editorial discretion, raising the question of whether mandating algorithm-free feeds for minors constitutes unconstitutional compelled speech. Second, the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) provides Congress broad authority to regulate internet platforms as instruments of interstate commerce, though post-Loper Bright (2024), any FTC rules implementing this bill would face independent judicial scrutiny rather than deference.
Checks and balances
The FTC gains primary enforcement authority over social media platforms under this bill, with state attorneys general gaining concurrent civil enforcement power; Congress retains oversight through the FTC's existing accountability structure, and federal courts serve as a check through judicial review of both FTC enforcement actions and the bill's constitutionality.
Historical precedent
The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA, 1998) similarly restricted platforms from collecting personal data from children under 13, establishing the federal precedent for age-based online privacy regulation that this bill builds upon and extends.