.png)
America’s kids are in crisis
Young Americans are facing an unprecedented mental health crisis. A survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 57% of high school girls and 29% of high school boys felt persistently sad or hopeless in 2021. It also found that 22% of all high school students – and nearly a third of high school girls – reporting they had seriously considered attempting suicide in the preceding year.
Social media is a leading driver of poor youth mental health. Numerous studies show that the more children and teens use social media, the higher their risk of being depressed. Similarly, studies have revealed that when children and teens reduce or eliminate exposure to social media for longer than a month, their mental health benefits.
Big Tech knows it’s complicit – but refuses to do anything about it. Though most social media platforms have an age minimum of 13 years old, nearly 40% of children ages 8–12 still use them. Moreover, the platforms know about their central role in turbocharging the youth mental health crisis. According to Meta’s own internal study, "thirty-two percent of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel worse.” It concluded, “teens blame Instagram for increases in the rate of anxiety and depression."
“Because the companies have shown time and again that they won’t step up, Congress must.”
– Senator Brian Schatz
The Kids Off Social Media Act
To help address this crisis, the Kids Off Social Media Act would:
- Prohibit social media platforms from allowing children under the age of 13 to create or maintain social media accounts, consistent with the current practices of major social media companies;
- Prohibit social media companies from recommending content using algorithms to users under the age of 17;
- Provide the FTC and state attorneys general authority to enforce the above provisions; and
- Track existing CIPA framework, with changes, to require schools to work in good faith to limit social media on their networks.
Bipartisan support for the bill
The Kids Off Social Media Act was introduced by:
Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i)
There is no good reason for a nine-year-old to be on Instagram or Snapchat. The growing evidence is clear: social media is making kids more depressed, more anxious, and more suicidal. Yet tech companies refuse to anything about it because it would hurt their bottom line. This is an urgent health crisis, and Congress must act with the boldness and urgency it demands.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
Every parent I know is concerned about the online threats to kids—from predators to videos promoting self-harm, risky behavior, or low self-esteem. Many families have suffered due to Big Tech’s failure to take responsibility for its products. The Kids Off Social Media Act addresses these issues by supporting families in crisis and empowering teachers to better manage their classrooms. I am proud to work with Senator Schatz on this bipartisan legislation to combat the harms social media poses to children, especially in schools. As Chairman of the Commerce Committee, I am confident we can swiftly move this legislation and similar measures through committee and urge Congress to heed the calls of parents everywhere by delivering this bill to President Trump's desk to help protect America’s youth.
Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)
Everyone knows how harmful social media can be to kids. As a parent, I’ve seen firsthand how these platforms use intentionally addictive algorithms to spoon-feed young people horrifying content glorifying everything from suicide to eating disorders. Yet these companies have proven they will choose profits over the wellbeing of our kids unless we force them to do otherwise. This bipartisan legislation will finally hold social media companies accountable.
Senator Katie Britt (R-Ala.)
There’s no doubt our country is in the throes of a mental health crisis, and the rise of social media usage among children and teenagers is inextricably tied to this issue.
As a mom, this is something my own kids and their friends have to contend with every day. And as a Senator, I know our nation has to contend with it to safeguard the next generation. Putting in place commonsense guardrails that protect our kids from the dangers of social media is critical for their future and America’s future. I’m committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put parents in the driver’s seat and enact commonsense, age-appropriate solutions to tackle this generational challenge.
The Kids Off Social Media Act is cosponsored by:
- Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.)
- Senator Ted Budd (R-N.C.)
- Senator John Fetterman (D-Pa.)
- Senator Angus King (I-Maine)
- Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.)
- Senator John Curtis (R-Utah)
Support from parents, medical professionals, counselors
Parents overwhelmingly support the mission of the Kids Off Social Media Act.
A survey conducted by Count on Mothers shows that over 90% of mothers agree that there should be a minimum age of 13 for social media. Additionally, 87% of mothers agree that social media companies should not be allowed to use personalized recommendation systems to deliver content to children. Pew finds similar levels of concern from parents, reporting that 70% or more of parents worry that their teens are being exposed to explicit content or wasting too much time on social media, with two-thirds of parents saying that parenting is harder today compared to 20 years ago—and many of them cited social media as a contributing factor.
The following groups support the Kids Off Social Media Act.
- American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
- American College of Pediatricians
- American Counseling Association
- American Federation of Teachers
- Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee
- Conservative Ladies of America
- Count on Mothers
- David’s Legacy Foundation
- Digital Progress
- HAS Coalition
- KidsToo
- National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners
- National Association of Social Workers
- National Association of School Nurses
- National Council for Mental Wellbeing
- National Federation of Families
- National League for Nursing
- National Organization for Women
- Parents Defending Education Action
- Parents Television and Media Council
- Parents Who Fight
- Public Citizen
- Tyler Clementi Foundation
FAQs
The bill ensures that:
- No children under 13 can create or maintain a social media account, consistent with current practices of social media companies;
- There are no algorithmic recommendation systems for kids under 17, with limited exceptions, while still allowing those users to proactively search for content and view it in a chronological feed; and
- Schools take good faith steps to limit social media on their school networks.
Does the bill require age verification or force users to provide a government ID to access social media?
No. This legislation does not impose age verification requirements or require platforms to collect any new data on users, including government IDs.
How does this bill determine the age of an individual on a social media platform?
Platforms already possess significant amounts of data about their users, including pictures they post, channels they follow, or simply the date of birth they require upon signup. Social media companies would be required to use this existing information to determine if a child is on their platform, and if they have knowledge that a user is a child than take appropriate actions under the bill. But if the social media platform does not have actual knowledge of the age of a user, then it does not face obligations under the bill.
This is the same standard present in the Kids
Online Safety Act and COPPA 2.0, creating a uniform
standard for companies to comply with.
Does this bill require parental permission to access social media?
No, there is no parental consent provision in this legislation.
Does this give parents authority to control a teen’s social media accounts and view all information?
No. The bill does not allow parents to surveil teen use of social media.
When you say algorithmic boosting is banned for children under 17, what does that really mean?
It means social media platforms will no longer
be able to use machine learning to follow exactly how long children watch posts
and what they click on to learn what makes each individual child stay on the platform
the longest, and then repeatedly forcing that content in front of children to
maximize profits.
Currently, the social media time online for dollars model means these companies
can feed children the kind of hateful, depressing, and problematic content that
has likely fueled the teen mental health crisis. Under our legislation,
children would still be able to affirmatively search for content, choose what
channels they want to watch or follow, and have that content displayed to them
in a chronological feed, without companies pushing this problematic content on
children.
Is the bill consistent with the First Amendment?
Yes. As, for example, First Amendment expert
Neil Richards explains, “Instead of censoring
the protected expression present on these platforms, the act takes aim at the
procedures and permissions that determine the time, place and manner of speech
for underage consumers.” The Supreme Court has long held that the government
has the right to regulate products to protect children, including by, for
instance, restricting the sale of obscene content to minors. As Richards
explains: “In the same way a crowded bar or nightclub is no place for a child
on their own”—or in the way every state in the country requires parental
consent if it allows a minor to get a tattoo—“this rule would set a reasonable
minimum age and maturity limitation for social media customers.”
While we expect legal challenges to any bill aimed at regulating social media
companies, we are confident that this content-neutral bill will pass
constitutional muster given the government interests at play.
Does this bill pose risks to LGBTQ+ youth by potentially denying them access to social media?
This bill does not prevent LGBTQ+ youth from accessing relevant resources online. We have worked closely with LGBTQ+ groups while crafting this legislation to ensure that this bill will not negatively impact this community.
Under this bill, kids would still be able to affirmatively seek out content and have that information displayed in a chronological feed. Furthermore, this bill would not impact access to platforms such as websites run by non-profits, direct messaging and teleconferencing services, and educational websites, among others.
Does the bill affect YouTube Kids?
No. YouTube Kids does not fit the definition of social media under the bill. Furthermore, video games do not fit the definition of social media under the bill, in addition to other platforms such as wireless messaging, educational platforms, and teleconferencing, among others.
How does this bill block social media on school networks?
The bill tracks existing requirements in the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) that requires schools to block or filter internet access to obscene content on school networks and takes the same approach to require schools to block or filter internet access to social media platforms.
How long would schools have to come into compliance?
Schools that do not already have a filter in
place for social media platforms have a two-year ramp-in, the same as the
original version of CIPA, to adopt an internet filter.
What does enforcement look like for this provision?
Under CIPA, enforcement is only triggered by a “knowing” failure. Meaning for a school to be at risk for CIPA enforcement, it must either knowingly fail to submit its annual certification as a part of its E-Rate application or knowingly fail to have a filter in place. Enforcement is run by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), which tests for CIPA compliance during its annual random audit process. At that time, the school would have to provide evidence that it has a social media filter in place.
What if a school doesn’t block all social media sites? Will it face enforcement action?
CIPA enforcement provisions were designed explicitly for situations of ambiguity around what would constitute obscene content, and this enforcement framework is equally forgiving in this context. Enforcement would focus on whether a school knowingly failed to have a filter in place rather than policing a specific list of sites that were or were not blocked on school networks.
Ok, but what happens if a school is found out of compliance?
Schools will not be penalized if they are found to be out of compliance despite good faith efforts. CIPA allows schools to come back into compliance by submitting their certification or evidence that they are complying with the policy. In other words, once they adopt their social media filter, they would be back in compliance.
Would public libraries be impacted by this provision?
No.
Does this bill compete with the Kids Online Safety Act or COPPA 2.0?
No. Senator Schatz is a cosponsor of both bills, and they take important steps to protect kids online. Working with Commerce Committee staff, this bill was crafted to compliment both KOSA and COPPA 2.0. Our bill aims to layer additional protections for social media on top of their protections for kids online due to the outsized negative impacts that social media is having on children and teens.
Will this bill prevent teens from finding resources that support the LGBTQ+ community?
No, the bill includes an explicit exception for non-profits sites, including TrevorSpace.
Will this bill conduct surveillance on the types of websites that students are accessing on their school devices?
No, the only requirement of schools is that they filter or block access to social media platforms. Schools will not be required to monitor the platforms that devices are trying to access.
Won’t poor, LGBTQ+ children be unable to access social media?
American
Community Survey data from 2021 shows that 97
percent of 3- to 18-year-olds had a device at home.
Pew
research data from 2024 says:
95
percent of
teens have a smartphone at home.
90
percent of
teens have a computer at home.
94 percent of teens with a household income under 30k have a
smartphone at home.