Concerns Over Children’s Online Safety Legislation

It seems lawmakers are constantly finding new ways to erode digital privacy and First Amendment rights—all in the name of “protecting children.”

The Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act is the newest example of political posturing that disguises federal overreach under the guise of child welfare. Those considering this bill might want to reflect on a straightforward question: Could the bill’s vague and broad language be manipulated by political adversaries to silence supportive voices?

In today’s digital world, children deserve authentic and effective protection. However, real security comes from empowering parents and holding genuine offenders accountable under existing laws.

Congress should dismiss the KIDS Act to preserve the constitutional rights of every American.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) along with Ranking Member Frank Pallone Jr. (D.N.J.) state that this latest “safety package” aims to “empower parents, establish safety as the default, strengthen privacy for children and teens, increase transparency around data brokers, and hold big tech accountable.”

We’ve seen similar proposals before. Many digital regulations are marketed as privacy protections, even while compromising personal privacy.

As David McGarry, Director of Research at the Taxpayer Protection Alliance noted, reaching any sort of “consensus” around digital safety laws remains elusive. Why? Because regulating the Internet is incredibly complex.

The Kids Online Safety Act illustrates this reality. Supporters have continually adjusted the bill, each time claiming to have fixed its flaws. Yet, every amendment has fallen short, leading to further revisions, McGarry pointed out.

This critique is just as applicable to the latest iteration of the KIDS Act, which includes KOSA.

Proponents argue that the bill’s newest version eliminates a “duty of care” directive that would require platforms to restrict vague categories of online content for underage users. Still, it targets broad swathes of constitutionally protected speech.

Digital platforms are instructed to “establish, implement, maintain, and enforce reasonable policies” aimed at mitigating potential harm to minors, including issues like “alcohol usage.” What exactly does that mean? Does a platform that hosts a video of a toast risk scrutiny? And could a harmless joke be misconstrued as a threat of physical violence? Given that “deceptive” remains undefined, almost any online transaction or advertisement could trigger federal law enforcement action.

This legal minefield undermines the First Amendment and stifles free expression across the digital landscape.

One of the bill’s most troubling aspects is its approach to age verification.

While the Children’s Act doesn’t specifically mandate age verification, the language is misleading. The bill would hold tech platforms liable for any content if they “knew or should have known” the ages of their users.

Consider the implications of “should have known.” If a company faces hefty fines or federal lawsuits for failing to ascertain user age, it may be forced to implement age verification measures—essentially requiring every user, whether adult or child, to share sensitive personal information like driver’s licenses or biometric data just to access basic online services.

This lays the groundwork for a digital surveillance state, where adults are compelled to prove their identity simply to access information.

The KIDS Act additionally seeks to address perceived online threats by expanding the federal bureaucracy and funding. It creates a range of cumbersome tasks for already-busy people, such as new investigations by the Federal Trade Commission and a longitudinal study by the National Institutes of Health, along with a public awareness campaign and the establishment of a “Kids Internet Safety Partnership” in the Department of Commerce.

This represents a significant growth in taxpayer-funded bureaucracy focused on devising a better age verification strategy.

Although advocates will point out that lawmakers removed the contentious “duty of care” clause and kept certain data encryption protections, simply removing the worst parts of a fundamentally flawed bill doesn’t rectify the underlying issues.

In this digital era, children should have genuine protections, but that comes from equipping parents with robust tools, enhancing media literacy, and enforcing existing laws against real offenders.

It shouldn’t come at the cost of transforming the internet into a monitoring system where adults must furnish documents just to navigate online.

Congress must say no to the Kids Act and defend both the Constitution and digital freedoms.