Tech firms fiercely oppose the regulations that nine states are considering to protect minors online
Maryland made history on 6 April by passing a “Kids Code” bill, becoming the first state in the US to do so. The bill aims to prevent tech companies from collecting predatory data from children and using design features that could harm them. Vermont’s legislature completed its final hearing before a full vote on its Kids Code bill on 11 April. These actions are the latest in a series of proposed policies that, in the absence of federal regulations, have turned state capitols into a major battleground. On one side are parents and child advocates who argue that there are insufficient protections for minors online, while on the other side are Silicon Valley tech companies who argue that the proposed restrictions would hinder both business and free speech.
Referred to as the Age-Appropriate Design Code or Kids Code bills, these initiatives propose specific data protection measures for underage internet users and outright bans on children under certain ages using social media. Maryland’s bill passed with unanimous votes in both its house and senate.
A total of nine states, including Maryland, Vermont, Minnesota, Hawaii, Illinois, New Mexico, South Carolina, New Mexico, and Nevada, have introduced bills aimed at enhancing online child safety. Minnesota’s bill was approved by the house committee in February.
During public hearings, lawmakers in several states have accused tech firm lobbyists of deception. Despite spending a quarter of a million dollars to lobby against the Maryland bill, tech companies were unsuccessful.
Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel of the tech trade association NetChoice, opposed the Maryland bill during a state senate finance committee meeting in mid-2023, identifying himself as a “lifelong Maryland resident, parent, [spouse] of a child therapist.”
Later in the hearing, a Maryland state senator inquired, “Who are you, sir? … I don’t believe it was revealed at the introduction of your commentary that you work for NetChoice. All I heard was that you were here testifying as a dad. I didn’t hear you had a direct tie as an employee and representative of big tech.”
Over the past two years, major technology companies have been actively lobbying in certain states to influence the passage of online safety bills. In Maryland alone, these companies spent over $243,000 on lobbying fees in 2023, the year the bill was introduced. According to state disclosure forms, Google spent $93,076, Amazon $88,886, and Apple $133,449.
In 2023, Amazon, Apple, Google, and Meta hired lobbyists within Minnesota and sent their employees to lobby directly. Additionally, in 2022, these four companies collectively spent $384,000 on lobbying in Minnesota, the highest total up to that point, as reported by the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board.
The bills mandate that tech companies undertake several measures to protect children’s experiences on their websites and evaluate their “data protection impact.” Companies must configure default privacy settings for children using online products to ensure a high level of privacy, “unless a compelling reason is demonstrated that a different setting is in the best interests of children.” Additionally, they must provide privacy information and terms of service in clear, understandable language for children, along with responsive tools to assist children, parents, or guardians in exercising their privacy rights and reporting concerns.
The legislation allows tech companies to determine whether users are underage but does not mandate verification through documents such as a driver’s license. Age determination could be based on data profiles companies have on a user or self-declaration, where users enter their birth date, known as “age-gating.”
Critics contend that tech companies’ method of estimating a child’s age could result in privacy breaches.
According to a spokesperson for NetChoice, “Typically, this is how it will operate: to verify if a user in a state is under a certain age and if the adult verifying a minor over that specified age is genuinely that child’s parent or guardian, online services will be required to perform identity verification.”
Supporters of the bills argue that users of social media should not be obliged to submit identity documents because the companies already possess their age information.
“They’ve amassed such a wealth of user data that they target advertisements to children because they know the user is a child,” stated a spokesperson for the advocacy group, the Tech Oversight Project. “Social media companies’ business models rely on understanding their users.”
NetChoice, representing the tech industry, has proposed several alternative measures to enhance child safety online. These include incorporating digital literacy and safety education into classroom curricula to help children develop “an awareness of healthy online practices in a classroom setting to better equip them for modern challenges.”
During a February meeting to discuss a proposed bill for online child safety, NetChoice’s director, Amy Bos, argued that safety controls implemented by social media companies and parental interventions, such as parents confiscating their children’s phones when they’ve spent too much time on screens, were more effective approaches than regulation. However, asking parents to opt in to protect their children often doesn’t see widespread adoption. In February, Snapchat and Discord informed the US Senate that fewer than 1% of their under-18 users had parents who monitored their online behavior using parental controls.
Bos vehemently argued that the proposed bill violated first amendment rights. Her statement prompted a Vermont state senator to inquire, “You mentioned, ‘We represent eBay and Etsy.’ Why would you mention those before TikTok and X in relation to a bill about social media platforms and teenagers?”
NetChoice is also advocating for the bipartisan Invest in Child Safety Act, which aims to provide law enforcement with the necessary resources to prosecute predators. The organization emphasizes that less than 1% of reported violations of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) are investigated by law enforcement due to resource and capacity constraints.
Critics of NetChoice’s position contend that more proactive measures are needed to prevent harm to children in the first place, and that tech companies should take responsibility for ensuring safety rather than placing it solely on parents and children.
Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, stated, “Big Tech and NetChoice are mistaken if they think they’re still fooling anybody with this ‘look there not here’ act. The latest list of alleged ‘solutions’ they propose is just another feint to avoid any responsibility and kick the can down the road while continuing to profit off our kids.”
All state bills have encountered opposition from tech companies, either through strong statements or in-person lobbying by their representatives.
Similar to Bos and Szabo, other tech lobbyists required prodding to disclose their relevant tech clients during their testimonies on child safety bills, if they disclosed them at all. A registered Amazon lobbyist, who spoke at two hearings on New Mexico’s Kids Code bill, stated that he represented the Albuquerque Hispano Chamber of Commerce and the New Mexico Hospitality Association but never mentioned Amazon. Another representative of a tech trade group failed to disclose his organization’s backing from Meta at the same Vermont hearing where Bos’s motives and affiliations were questioned, despite Meta being arguably the company most affected by the bill’s provisions.
Supporters of the bills argue that these speakers are intentionally hiding their affiliations to sway lawmakers more effectively.
“We are witnessing a clear and escalating pattern of deceit in anti-Kids Code lobbying,” stated Haworth of the Tech Oversight Project, a supporter of the bills. “Big tech companies that profit billions a year off kids are refusing to directly engage with outraged citizens and grieving parents in all these states. Instead, they are sending front-group lobbyists to oppose this legislation.”
NetChoice refuted these allegations. A spokesperson for the group stated in a press release, “We are a technology trade association. The accusation that we are attempting to conceal our ties to the tech industry is absurd.”