Big Tech’s Fight Against the Online Kid Safety Bill: What You Need to Know

In July, the Senate passed the Kids Online Safety Act with near-unanimous bipartisan support, an unusually rare moment of cooperation that suggested widespread agreement on the urgent need for stronger safeguards to protect children from the increasing dangers of online platforms. The bill gained momentum, driven in part by heartbreaking accounts from families who lost children due to issues linked to social media and other digital platforms, including mental health issues, addiction, cyberbullying, and sexual exploitation. For many of these families, social media platforms were seen as a primary source of harm, contributing to their children’s struggles in ways that were often overlooked by the companies responsible for these platforms.

Yet, despite this strong support in the Senate, the bill has faced significant roadblocks in the House of Representatives, where it has been delayed and blocked from moving forward. This stall has been exacerbated by a combination of increasing conservative concerns and an aggressive, record-breaking lobbying effort from the very tech companies the bill seeks to regulate. Meta, the parent company of Instagram, and Alphabet, the parent company of Google and YouTube, have played central roles in the lobbying campaign. These companies have poured nearly $90 million into lobbying efforts over the past three years, addressing a wide range of legislative issues, but a significant portion of that has been targeted specifically at blocking or weakening provisions of the Kids Online Safety Act. This massive spending effort has highlighted the tech giants’ vested interest in protecting their platforms from regulatory scrutiny that could hold them liable for the harms their designs cause, particularly to vulnerable children.

At the heart of the bill is the concept of a “duty of care” for online platforms. This provision would legally require platforms to take proactive steps to protect children from online harms, including addressing issues like addiction, bullying, mental health deterioration, and sexual exploitation. The bill would hold platforms accountable for their design decisions, particularly those that may inadvertently amplify harmful behaviors or make it easier for young users to engage in addictive or dangerous activities. This would represent a dramatic shift in how tech companies have been treated by the law. Historically, tech platforms have enjoyed significant immunity from liability for harms caused by their platforms, thanks to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This immunity has shielded platforms from being held accountable for the content shared by users and the effects that content has on individuals, especially children.

Meta and Alphabet, as well as other tech companies, have strongly opposed the bill’s “duty of care” provisions, fearing the potential legal and financial ramifications. These companies have engaged in sophisticated lobbying strategies, framing their objections around cultural and political concerns to sway lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. On the left, the companies have raised alarms that the bill could inadvertently lead to the censorship of LGBTQ+ content, with concerns that platforms could be pressured into removing or suppressing posts related to LGBTQ+ issues for fear of legal liability. On the right, the companies have played on conservative fears that the bill could lead to the censorship of pro-life or anti-abortion content, casting the legislation as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” designed to expand the power of the Biden administration to target conservative speech.

These culture-war arguments have proven effective in stalling the bill, creating a rift between liberal and conservative lawmakers who might otherwise agree on the need to regulate tech companies. The lobbying effort has been particularly focused on conservative lawmakers in the House, where Republican leadership has voiced opposition to the bill’s provisions. As a result, the legislation, which seemed poised to pass with overwhelming support just months ago, has now become a deeply polarizing issue, making it more difficult to gain the necessary votes to move forward.

At the same time, the bill has faced opposition from non-tech companies, including media conglomerates like News Corp, which has spent nearly $2 million lobbying on the issue. These companies are particularly concerned about the bill’s provisions related to the verification of users’ ages, which they fear could create logistical and financial burdens, especially when it comes to ensuring that children are adequately protected without infringing on the rights of adult users. There is a growing recognition that the bill’s implications will reach beyond just tech companies, with potentially wide-ranging effects on online businesses and platforms of all types.

Amidst this political and legislative gridlock, the tragic story of Maurine Molak and her son David has continued to fuel support for the Kids Online Safety Act. David, who died by suicide in 2016, had struggled with addiction to social media and online gaming. Maurine Molak has become a passionate advocate for stronger regulations, pointing to the ways that platforms like Instagram amplified David’s distress, including the effects of infinite scrolling, push notifications, and intermittent rewards that kept him engaged even when he wanted to disconnect. Molak’s story highlights the specific harms the bill seeks to address—how the very design features of apps, often created to maximize user engagement, can have devastating consequences, particularly for vulnerable young people.

The Kids Online Safety Act aims to address these issues by holding platforms accountable for design decisions that may harm children, such as addictive features and inadequate moderation of harmful content. It would also require platforms to take swift action when users report imminent harm, a provision that many child safety advocates argue is essential in creating a safer online environment for young people. Meta, in response, has argued that the legislation should focus more on parental controls and the role of app stores in regulating access to apps for teens under 16, rather than placing the burden solely on platforms like Instagram and Facebook. In September, Meta made some changes to its platform, including setting teen accounts to private by default, in response to growing criticism from parents and youth advocates who claimed the company had not done enough to protect young users from harm.

As the lobbying campaign intensified in 2022, Meta and Alphabet executives crafted messaging designed to appeal to critics of the bill. They emphasized the potential for overreach, arguing that the bill could lead to censorship of legitimate speech, particularly for marginalized communities. To counter this, they reached out to LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, as well as conservative lawmakers, to emphasize the potential harms of the legislation from both cultural and political perspectives. They also intensified their lobbying efforts as the Senate prepared to vote on the bill in July, with lobbyists meeting with conservative members of Congress and circulating memos warning that the bill would disproportionately affect conservative viewpoints, particularly on issues related to abortion and free speech.

Despite these efforts, the bill’s passage remains uncertain. With the upcoming election results shifting the balance of power in Congress, it remains to be seen whether the bill will gain the momentum it needs to pass in the House. While Republicans retained control of the House in the recent elections, their majority is narrow, meaning that any attempt to advance the bill will require delicate negotiations and compromises. For now, the future of the Kids Online Safety Act remains uncertain, caught between the competing interests of tech giants, lawmakers, and advocacy groups fighting to ensure that children’s safety is prioritized in the digital age.