Contrasting Social Media Rules Take Shape on the Hill

This week, leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee released a bipartisan bill that would create new federal rules meant to shield minors from unwanted contact, reduce compulsive usage, and block obscenity online. The bill focuses on new federal laws applied to social media platforms and material created by artificial intelligence (AI). 

The Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act (KIDS Act) is one of the first tests of how far Congress is willing to go when it comes to preempting state social media and AI regulations that have been passed in recent years.The House and Senate are already in different places. The House wants to establish a federal baseline of laws and let states add more stringent regulations while the Senate (and seemingly the White House) wants more stringent federal liability tied to total federal preemption of state regulations. 

The divergent views in each chamber suggests that a compromise could take time. That means passing online rules before Congress changes in January will be difficult. It also suggests that other complicated tech regulations – including those related to AI – may wait until after the midterms. Below is more information on the bill’s details and differences.

New Bipartisan House Bill Released: The KIDS Act in the House would create minimum federal standards for AI decency and online platform protections but not preempt states from passing additional laws. Specifically, the bill would require online platforms to provide minimum privacy and anti-obscenity features for users who are known to be minors. 

Among other things, platforms would be required to do the following: 

• Establish internal policies to protect minors from violence and exploitation.

• Block communications and messages to minors from other users. 

• Prevent users from viewing a minor’s online status.

• Limit designs that “result in compulsive usage of the covered platform.”

• Allow minors to easily opt-out of content recommendations. 

• Provide an option to limit the amount of time spent on a platform. 

• Include a tool to allow parents to monitor and change settings. 

• Notify parents whenever a setting is changed by a known minor.



• Disclose when AI is being used in communications.  

Senate Discussions Continue: Meanwhile, Senate negotiators are working on an updated version of their initial bill, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). The undrafted Senate bill would reportedly differ from the House bill in two major ways. First, the bill would create a new legal obligation that online platforms must protect children’s safety. The “duty of care” provision adds a much more severe level of liability for online platforms. Second, the bill would fully preempt and block state laws regulating online platforms and online AI. 

The White House, Senate negotiators, and online platforms have been working together on this draft in order to establish a national regulatory framework. The political theory is that private online platforms would be willing to accept and endorse a higher legal obligation in order to benefit from a fully comprehensive federal regulatory structure. The House bill’s provisions are less extensive on both issues. 

The Debate Over State Preemption: The discrepancies over state preemption and “duty of care” on the Hill means that the KIDS Act could probably pass the House now, but not the Senate. Even with the looser preemption provisions in the House bill, a bipartisan group of attorneys general had expressed concerns about earlier versions of the KIDS Act because they oppose any federal limitation on states’ abilities to pass their own laws. 

Industry leaders, including social media platforms and AI developers, are working with the White House to create a nationwide framework of online AI regulation. Their goal is to replace a fragmented system of regulations with a clear national standard. The argument is that one standard of rules will help America lead the world in critical AI technology development. Companies like Meta, who had previously opposed similar legislation, have dropped opposition to federal regulations in favor of the preemption of state laws.

Outside of states trying to preserve their autonomy, privacy advocates and libertarian-leaning groups have expressed opposition to the proposals, arguing they would undermine free speech and privacy and data security. The varying viewpoints on the legislation underline how difficult it will be to get a bill to the President’s desk this year.