    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                 LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS TO PROTECT CHILDREN
                              AND TEENS ONLINE
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING,
                                    AND TRADE

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                DECEMBER 2, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-44

         Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                       govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                            energycommerce.house.gov

                                    __________

                           U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISING OFFICE
    63-241 PDF                    WASHINGTON : 2026
    =======================================================================

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                            BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
                                     Chairman
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia           Ranking Member
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama              KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    NEAL P. DUNN, Florida, Vice          PAUL TONKO, New York
        Chairman                         YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    DAN CRENSHAW, Texas                  RAUL RUIZ, California
    JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania             SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
    AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas                DARREN SOTO, Florida
    DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee         KIM SCHRIER, Washington
    MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa       LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
    KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
    JAY OBERNOLTE, California            ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York
    JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
    CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
    ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          KEVIN MULLIN, California
    LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
    NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
    THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey
    MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio
    GABE EVANS, Colorado
    CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas
    JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota
                                     ------

                               Professional Staff

                         MEGAN JACKSON, Staff Director
                    SOPHIE KHANAHMADI, Deputy Staff Director
                   TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
               Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade

                           GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
                                     Chairman
    RUSS FULCHER, Idaho, Vice Chairman   JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    NEAL P. DUNN, Florida                  Ranking Member
    KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    JAY OBERNOLTE, California            DARREN SOTO, Florida
    JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
    CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  KEVIN MULLIN, California
    ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey      ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    GABE EVANS, Colorado                 KIM SCHRIER, Washington
    CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas              FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky (ex              officio)
        officio)
                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Florida, opening statement............................     2
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Hon. Jan Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Illinois, opening statement.................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     6
    Hon. Kevin Mullin, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      California, prepared statement.................................     8
    Hon. Brett Guthrie, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement....................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    11
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................    14
        Prepared statement...........................................    16

                                   Witnesses

    Marc Berkman, Chief Executive Officer, Organization for Social
      Media Safety...................................................    18
        Prepared statement...........................................    20
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   278
    Paul Lekas, Executive Vice President, Global Public Policy and
      Government Affairs, Software & Information Industry Association    38
        Prepared statement...........................................    40
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   283
    Kate Ruane, Director, Free Expression Project, Center for
      Democracy & Technology.........................................    52
        Prepared statement \1\
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   287
    Joel Thayer, President, Digital Progress Institute...............    53
        Prepared statement...........................................    56

                                 Legislation \2\

    H.R. ___, the Children and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act
    Discussion Draft, H.R. ___, the Kids Online Safety Act
    Discussion Draft, H.R. ___, the Reducing Exploitative Social
      Media Exposure for Teens (RESET) Act
    H.R. 2657, Sammy's Law
    H.R. 3149, the App Store Accountability Act
    H.R. 1623, the Shielding Children's Retinas from Egregious
      Exposure on the Net (SCREEN) Act
    H.R. ___, the Safe Social Media Act
    H.R. ___, the Algorithmic Choice and Transparency Act
    H.R. ___, the No Fentanyl on Social Media Act
    H.R. ___, the Promoting a Safe Internet for Minors Act
    Discussion Draft, H.R. ___, the Safeguarding Adolescents From
      Exploitative (SAFE) Bots Act

    ----------

    \1\ Ms. Ruane's statement has been retained in committee files and is
    available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20251202/118714/
    HHRG-119-IF17-Wstate-RuaneK-20251202.pdf.
    \2\ The bills have been retained in committee files and are available
    at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
    ByEvent.aspx?EventID=118714.
    Discussion Draft, H.R. ___, the Kids Internet Safety Partnership
      Act \2\
    H.R. 5360, the AI Warnings And Resources for Education (AWARE)
      Act \2\
    H.R. 6265, the Safer Guarding of Adolescents from Malicious
      Interactions on Network Games (GAMING) Act \2\
    Discussion Draft, H.R. ___, the Assessing Safety Tools for
      Parents and Minors Act \2\
    H.R. ___, the Stop Profiling Youth and (SPY) Kids Act \2\
    H.R. ___, the Safe Messaging for Kids Act \2\
    H.R. ___, the Don't Sell Kids' Data Act of 2025 \2\
    Discussion Draft, H.R. ___, the Parents Over Platforms Act \2\

                               Submitted Material

    Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
    List of documents submitted for the record.......................   102
    Letters from multiple correspondents to Mr. Guthrie, et al. \3\
    Letter of November 3, 2025, from Penny Young Nance, Chief
      Executive Officer and President, Concerned Women for America,
      to committee members...........................................   104
    Letter of December 1, 2025, from Nicole Smith, President, Dignity
      Defense Institute, to Mr. Guthrie, et al.......................   105
    Letter of December 2, 2025, from Morgan Reed, President, ACT-the
      App Association, to Mr. Bilirakis, et al.......................   107
    Letter of November 26, 2025, from Sam A. Cabral, International
      President, International Union of Police Associations, to Mr.
      Bilirakis, et al...............................................   113
    Letter of December 1, 2025, from Engine to Mr. Bilirakis and Ms.
      Schakowsky.....................................................   115
    Letter of December 1, 2025, from Association of Ministers in
      Utah, et al., to Mr. Guthrie and committee members.............   118
    Letter of December 1, 2025, from the Center for Innovation and
      Free Enterprise to Mr. Guthrie, et al..........................   120
    Letter from Erich Mische, Chief Executive Officer, Suicide
      Awareness Voices of Education (SAVE), to Mr. Bilirakis, et al..   121
    Poll data from Digital Childhood Alliance, May 1, 2025...........   126
    Letter of December 1, 2025, from Indiana University College
      Republicans to Mr. Guthrie, et al..............................   129
    Letter from Raul Lopez, Chairman of the Board and Cofounder, and
      Tommy Vallejos, Executive Director and Cofounder, Latinos for
      Tennessee. to Mr. Guthrie, et al...............................   131
    Letter of December 1, 2025, from the Main Street Privacy
      Coalition to Mr. Guthrie, et al................................   133
    Letter of December 1, 2025, from Hilary Ware, Global Head of
      Privacy, Apple, to Mr. Bilirakis and Ms. Schakowsky............   135
    Letter of December 2, 2025, from Chan Park, Head of U.S. and
      Canada Policy and Partnerships, OpenAI, to Mr. Bilirakis and
      Ms. Schakowsky.................................................   139
    Statement of Amy Bos, Vice President of Government Affairs,
      NetChoice, to subcommittee, December 2, 2025...................   141
    Letter of December 2, 2025, from Arjun Bhatnagar, Chief Executive
      Officer, Cloaked, to subcommittee members......................   145
    Letter of December 2, 2025, from Center for Black Equity, et al.,
      to subcommittee members........................................   146
    Federal Trade Commission documents related to app stores.........   150
    Letter of December 2, 2025, from Digital Childhood Alliance, et
      al., to Mr. Guthrie, et al.....................................   169
    Letter of December 1, 2025, from Stephanie Smith, President and
      Chief Executive Officer, Alabama Policy Institute, to Mr.
      Guthrie, et al.................................................   173
    Letter from Sheriff Michael J. Murphy, Livingston County,
      Michigan, to committee members.................................   175
    Letter of December 1, 2025, from Design It For Us, et al., to Mr.
      Guthrie and Mr. Pallone........................................   176
    Letter of November 24, 2025, from various parents to House
      Speaker Mike Johnson, et al....................................   178

    ----------

    \2\ The bills have been retained in committee files and are available
    at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
    ByEvent.aspx?EventID=118714.
    \3\ The information has been retained in committee files and is
    included in the Documents for the Record at https://docs.house.gov/
    meetings/IF/IF17/20251202/118714/HHRG-119-IF17-20251202-SD003.pdf.
    Statement by AAJ: ``OPPOSE House KOSA & COPPA 2.0''..............   189
    Letter of December 1, 2025, from Hilary Ware, Global Head of
      Privacy, Apple, to Mr. Bilirakis and Ms. Schakowsky............   192
    Letter of December 1, 2025, from Tom Kemp, Executive Director,
      California Privacy Protection Agency, to Mr. Guthrie, et al....   196
    Letter of October 15, 2025, from Active Minds, et al., to Senate
      Majority Leader John Thune, et al..............................   199
    Letter from Holly Grosshans, Senior Counsel, Tech Policy, Common
      Sense Media....................................................   213
    Letter of December 1, 2025, from ParentsSOS to subcommittee
      members........................................................   215
    Report, ``Social Media and Youth Mental Health, The U.S. Surgeon
      General's Advisory,'' 2023 \3\
    Report, ``Health Advisory on Social Media Use in Adolescence,''
      American Psychological Association, May 2023...................   217
    Report, ``Teens, Social Media and Mental Health,'' by Michelle
      Faverio, et al., Pew Research Center, April 22, 2025 \3\
    Statement of Cayce Savage to the Senate Judiciary Committee's
      Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, September 6,
      2025...........................................................   229
    Responses to Senate Judiciary Committee questions for the record
      from Cayce Savage..............................................   235
    Statement of Jason Sattizahn to the Senate Judiciary Committee's
      Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, September 9,
      2025...........................................................   253
    Responses to Senate Judiciary Committee questions for the record
      from Jason Sattizahn...........................................   260
    Report, ``Teen Accounts, Broken Promises: How Instagram is
      Failing to Protect Minors'' \3\

    ----------

    \3\ The information has been retained in committee files and is
    included in the Documents for the Record at https://docs.house.gov/
    meetings/IF/IF17/20251202/118714/HHRG-119-IF17-20251202-SD003.pdf.

           LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS TO PROTECT CHILDREN AND TEENS ONLINE

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2025

                      House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:18 a.m., in
    the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
    Hon. Gus Bilirakis (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Bilirakis, Fulcher, Dunn,
    Cammack, Obernolte, James, Bentz, Houchin, Fry, Lee, Kean,
    Evans, Goldman, Guthrie (ex officio), Schakowsky (subcommittee
    ranking member), Castor, Soto, Trahan, Mullin, Clarke, Dingell,
    Kelly, Schrier, and Pallone (ex officio).
        Also present: Representatives Joyce and Miller-Meeks.
        Staff present: Christian Calvert, Press Assistant; Jessica
    Donlon, General Counsel; Sydney Greene, Director of Finance and
    Logistics; Megan Jackson, Staff Director; AT Johnson, Special
    Advisor; Daniel Kelly, Press Secretary; Sophie Khanahmadi,
    Deputy Staff Director; Alex Khlopin, Policy Analyst, Commerce,
    Manufacturing, and Trade; Brayden Lacefield, Special Assistant;
    Giulia Leganski, Chief Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and
    Trade; Joel Miller, Chief Counsel; Evangelos Razis,
    Professional Staff Member, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade;
    Seth Ricketts, Special Assistant; Chris Sarley, Member
    Services/Stakeholder Director; Matt VanHyfte, Communications
    Director; Hannah Anton, Minority Policy Analyst; Keegan
    Cardman, Minority Staff Assistant; Kelly Fabian, Minority Chief
    Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Waverly Gordon,
    Minority Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel; Tiffany
    Guarascio, Minority Staff Director; Jackson Hall, Minority
    Intern; Perry Hamilton, Minority Deputy Director, Member
    Services and Outreach; Megan Kanne, Minority Professional Staff
    Member; Phoebe Rouge, Minority FTC Detailee; and Andrew
    Souvall, Minority Director of Communications, Outreach, and
    Member Services.
        Mr. Bilirakis. The committee will come to order.
        The chairman recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an
    opening statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GUS M. BILIRAKIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

        Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing to discuss
    legislative solutions to protect children online.
        Our children are facing an online epidemic. This issue is
    personal. We have parents on both sides of the aisle, and we
    all have constituents who have been affected. They are why we
    are here today.
        We are examining almost 20 bills today which together form
    a comprehensive strategy to protect kids online. Our approach
    is straightforward: Protect kids, empower parents, and future-
    proof our legislation as new risks and technologies emerge.
        These bills are not stand-alone solutions. They complement
    and reinforce one another to create the safest possible
    environment for our children. There is no one-size-fits-all
    bill to protect kids online, and our plan reflects that.
        Parents must be empowered to safeguard their children
    online. Just as a parent can observe their children's
    activities and social behaviors at home and at school
    functions, so should they be able to check on their kids'
    activities online.
        Our bills ensure parents have the tools and resources to
    keep their children safe in the modern world. A child's life in
    the 21st century is much more complex than generations past,
    and parents need the tools to adapt.
        Our bills are mindful of the Constitution's protections for
    free speech. We have seen it in the States: Laws with good
    intentions have been struck down for violating the First
    Amendment. We are learning from those experiences, because a
    law that gets struck down in court does not protect a child.
    And the status quo is unacceptable, as far as I am concerned.
        All our bills employ this strategy, including the Kids
    Online Safety Act, or KOSA, that I am proud to lead. KOSA sets
    a national standard to protect kids across America and mandates
    default safeguards and easy-to-use parental controls to empower
    families.
        It blocks children from being exposed to or targeted with
    ads for illegal or inappropriate content like drugs and
    alcohol. It takes on addictive design features that keep kids
    hooked and harm their mental health. And, most importantly, it
    holds Big Tech accountable with mandatory audits and strong
    enforcement by the FTC and State attorneys general.
        I made precise changes to ensure KOSA is durable. Don't
    mistake durability for weakness, folks. This bill has teeth. By
    focusing on design features rather than protecting speech, we
    will ensure it can withstand legal challenge while delivering
    real protections for kids online--kids and their families.
        I am proud of the members of this subcommittee for working
    on legislation to address a myriad of harms and challenges.
    This issue is personal to every one of us up here. It shows in
    the number of bills before us today. I know this is a shared,
    bipartisan goal.
        My office is open. Call me or find me on the floor. I think
    you know that I am willing to listen. Let's find a way to work
    together. And this is not a partisan issue, folks. Let's find a
    way to work together and save America's kids from the threats
    they are facing online. That is the bottom line.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Bilirakis. I yield back the balance of my time.
        The chairman recognizes the ranking member, Ms. Schakowsky,
    for her 5 minutes for an opening statement.
        You are recognized.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAN SCHAKOWSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        There is not a single thing that we deal with, in my view,
    that is more important than to take care of our kids. And I
    believe that the legislation that has been offered by the
    Republicans does not do the job. And it is really frustrating,
    because we have been working on this bill and moving it around
    here and there for a long time.
        Yesterday, I had the privilege of meeting with three women,
    who are here today in the audience, who have been here for 5
    years because their children died not necessarily. They didn't
    need to die. And it is the kinds of things that we can learn
    from them that we can do much better.
        I mean to say that the--that--who can't--yes, the different
    States--what is it? The States--States--sorry--cannot do their
    own bill--cannot do their own bill. I am sorry. We have a long,
    long way to go to protect our children and to make sure that
    all are involved.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Schakowsky follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Schakowsky. Now I want to yield at this point to
    Congressman Mullin to continue in this discussion.
        Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and thank
    you, Mr. Chair, for convening this hearing on a very important
    topic.
        Protecting kids is perhaps the single most unifying,
    bipartisan issue we have here in Congress. We all want to keep
    our kids safe. I myself am the father of two small boys who
    aren't yet--but will be before I know it--an age when they will
    be navigating the internet on their own. To say I am worried
    for them is an understatement.
        But the country and Congress is not without tools to keep
    people safe online. In fact, more than 100 years ago, the
    Federal Trade Commission was set up to prevent harms to
    consumers of all kinds, including kids. Indeed, most of the
    bills we will be discussing today rely on the FTC to enforce
    them.
        So that is why it has been stunning to see the contempt in
    which the Trump administration has held the FTC. Rather than
    seeking from Congress a change in the law, President Trump has
    simply attempted to unlawfully fire two of its Commissioners,
    eliminating bipartisan input.
        Meanwhile, the Chair of the FTC has attempted to
    dramatically reduce the Commission's staff through buy-outs and
    other drastic measures. He has actually bragged that he wants
    to get the Commission's staff size to its lowest level in 10
    years.
        The Chair has also been using the tools of the FTC to wage
    a culture war against medical professionals and parental
    choices he disagrees with. This is more than a harmful
    deviation from the Commission's mission. It undermines consumer
    protections for all of us by taking cops off their normal beat.
        Yet today we will be talking about all the things we want
    and need the FTC to do to protect kids online. But who will be
    doing that work? The remaining employees at the FTC, who are
    already stretched too thin?
        As evidenced by this long list of bipartisan bills, there
    is clearly a lot of alignment across the parties about the role
    we want the FTC to play. In that spirit, I hope that, as we
    discuss the legislative proposals today, we acknowledge the
    need to fully fund the FTC, protect its bipartisan commission
    structure, and ensure the FTC is focused on the mission
    Congress gives it.
        I look forward to a robust discussion today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Mullin follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Mullin. With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr.
    Guthrie, for his 5 minutes.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRETT GUTHRIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Chairman Bilirakis. Thanks for
    having this hearing today. And thank you to our witnesses for
    being with us here today.
        Tragedy strikes children every day online. In March, I
    shared the story of a constituent who took his life due to a
    sextortion scheme. I know each of us here today and many others
    have similar stories to share. And while we passed the TAKE IT
    DOWN Act into law earlier this Congress to address sextortion,
    countless other harms persist, and it is our responsibility to
    find a solution.
        That is why we are here today. We have almost two dozen
    bills before us that take a broad approach to create a
    comprehensive strategy to protect children online.
        Imagine a 14-year-old child trying to download a social
    media app on their phone. There are many different layers
    needed to protect them from harm. And we are discussing a
    comprehensive approach today, where different types of
    legislation could work in harmony to address various concerns.
        For example, age verification is needed first and foremost,
    including appropriate parental consent, even before logging in.
    Once a user's age is known, privacy protections under COPPA 2.0
    would be triggered.
        We also have a range of bills to further address issues
    like parental monitoring of online activity, restrictions on
    the types of apps kids can access, how information is presented
    to kids in apps, and how children's data is used by online
    platforms.
        And, finally, the Kids Online Safety Act provides robust
    parental controls and limitations on harmful design features to
    ensure that platforms live up to these standards.
        Now, I would note that we went to great lengths to address
    concerns that Members of the House on both sides of the aisle
    raised regarding KOSA in the last Congress, as well as concerns
    that the previous version would not pass a legal challenge and,
    thus, not protect a single child. The KOSA we are considering
    today still holds platforms accountable while addressing these
    concerns.
        Further, when it comes to AI chatbots, we learned about
    this in committee a couple of weeks ago. The SAFE Bots Act and
    AWARE Act will ensure users are appropriately informed in their
    using AI and that there are educational resources for kids,
    parents, and educators on the safe use of AI chatbots.
        These exemplify our strategy that Chairman Bilirakis has
    highlighted. The online world is large and complex, and there
    is no silver-bullet solution to protect kids. Each bill we are
    looking at today could be a piece of a puzzle designed to work
    together to create the safest possible environment for children
    online.
        They empower parents through parental consent mechanisms,
    standards for parental tools, and educational resources. They
    are curated to withstand constitutional challenges. A law that
    gets struck down protects no one, and, if that happened, would
    fail to protect the very children we are here to protect.
        We have a unique opportunity to work together to craft a
    multifaceted solution to protect children online.
        Thank you again to our witnesses for being here. We really
    appreciate the efforts you made to be here. We greatly look
    forward to the discussions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Guthrie. And I would yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. The gentleman yields back.
        Now I will recognize the ranking member of the full
    committee, Mr. Pallone, for his 5 minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Bilirakis.
        Today, we are discussing the important topic of youth
    online safety. And as more of our lives are lived online, there
    have been tremendous changes in how we communicate, socialize,
    and learn. And with these changes come new challenges to
    ensuring the health and wellbeing of all Americans but
    particularly our youngest and most vulnerable.
        We can all agree that we want our kids and teens to be safe
    online. Congress, along with parents, educators, and States,
    can and should play an active role in keeping minors safe. And
    that role must include prioritizing strong, comprehensive data
    privacy legislation, which unfortunately is not included in the
    19 bills we are considering today.
        Comprehensive data privacy legislation is something I have
    cared about for many years. But in the absence of data privacy
    legislation, companies will continue to collect, process, and
    sell as much of our data and the data of our kids as possible.
    And this data allows companies to exploit human psychology and
    individual preferences to fuel invasive ads and design
    features, without regard to the harm suffered by those still
    developing critical thinking and judgment.
        Artificial intelligence is only accelerating existing
    incentives because, like social media, AI relies on the
    exploitation of our data.
        Without such a strong legislative solution for children,
    teens, and all Americans, we must recognize that the measures
    we take in Congress will not address the full scope of the
    problems perpetrated by an online ecosystem fundamentally built
    on reckless and abusive data practices. We can and should do
    more for our children and for all consumers.
        But if comprehensive privacy legislation was easy, it would
    already be law. And the urgency of addressing harms to children
    and teens presents an opportunity to make progress towards
    ensuring the internet is a safer place for all Americans.
        This is why I am pleased we will be discussing my bill that
    will prevent shadowy data brokers from selling minors' data and
    allow parents and teens to request the deletion of any data
    already in the hands of brokers.
        We simply should not allow nameless data harvesters to
    profit off of our kids' data. Our kids deserve the right to
    enter adulthood with a clean slate, not a detailed dossier that
    will follow them throughout their adult lives.
        They also deserve online safety legislation that will make
    the internet safer, not put their data and physical safety more
    at risk. And I am concerned that mandating third-party access
    to children's data and requiring additional collection and
    sharing of sensitive data before accessing content, sending a
    message, or downloading an app would move us in the wrong
    direction in the fight for online privacy.
        Congress must also remember that, unfortunately, many kids
    find themselves in unsupportive or even abusive or neglected
    households. There can be real-world harm from allowing parents
    complete access and control over their teens' existence online.
        Instead of shifting ever more burden onto parents and teens
    and putting ever more trust in tech companies, we can give
    everyone safer defaults and more control over their digital
    lives.
        We can also require companies to evaluate their algorithms
    for bias and harms before making our kids the guinea pigs.
        And we can resist efforts to preempt existing protections
    and let States continue to respond to rapidly evolving
    technologies, like AI chatbots, and enforce their existing
    child safety and privacy laws.
        And we can all stand up for an independent Federal Trade
    Commission.
        Now, the FTC, under both Republican and Democratic
    leadership, has consistently been Americans' strongest champion
    against the abuses of all who seek to exploit our Nation's
    children and adults for profit both on- and offline. When
    President Trump attempted to illegally fire the FTC's
    Democratic Commissioners, he made our children less safe
    online.
        If my Republican colleagues want to further empower the FTC
    to protect kids and teens, they must join Democrats in standing
    up for a bipartisan and independent FTC. They should join us in
    demanding that the Democratic Commissioners be reinstated.
        So I look forward to the discussion today on this important
    issue.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Pallone. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back
    the balance of my time.
        Mr. Bilirakis. The gentleman yields back. We appreciate
    that.
        And now we are going to introduce our witnesses for today.
        Mr. Marc Berkman, CEO of the Organization for Social Media
    Safety, welcome, sir.
        Mr. Paul Lekas, executive vice president, Software &
    Information Industry Association, welcome.
        Ms. Kate Ruane, director of the Free Expression Project,
    Center for Democracy & Technology, welcome.
        And Mr. Joel Thayer, who is president of the Digital
    Progress Institute.
        Welcome to all our witnesses.
        So, Mr. Berkman, you are recognized for your 5 minutes of
    testimony.

         STATEMENTS OF MARC BERKMAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
      ORGANIZATION FOR SOCIAL MEDIA SAFETY; PAUL LEKAS, EXECUTIVE
     VICE PRESIDENT, GLOBAL PUBLIC POLICY AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS,
       SOFTWARE & INFORMATION INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION; KATE RUANE,
       DIRECTOR, FREE EXPRESSION PROJECT, CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY &
       TECHNOLOGY; AND JOEL THAYER, PRESIDENT, DIGITAL PROGRESS
                               INSTITUTE

                       STATEMENT OF MARC BERKMAN

        Mr. Berkman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good afternoon and thank you to the distinguished members
    of this committee for the opportunity to offer my
    organization's social media safety expertise at this historic
    legislative hearing to protect our children from online harms.
        My name is Marc Berkman, and I am the CEO of the
    Organization for Social Media Safety, the first national
    nonpartisan consumer-protection organization focused
    exclusively on social media.
        The reason for this legislative hearing must be explicitly
    clear: Social media is harming children. It is harming millions
    of America's children.
        Up to 95 percent of youth ages 13 to 17 report using a
    social media platform, with more than a third saying they use
    social media almost constantly. Nearly 40 percent of children
    ages 8 to 12 use social media. In our own study with the UCLA
    School of Education including over 16,000 teens, we have found
    that 50 percent self-report using social media for more than 5
    hours daily.
        The evidence, based on credible research and testimony in
    this very chamber, shows severe, pervasive harms related to
    adolescent social media use: cyberbullying, harassment,
    predation, human trafficking, drug trafficking, violence,
    fraud, sextortion, suicide, depression, cognitive impairment,
    eating disorders, and more.
        Social media-related harm is far reaching, impacting homes
    in every congressional district, families of every demographic.
    But to understand the true toll, we need look no further than
    the many parents here with us today who have tragically lost a
    child to a social media-related threat.
        Sitting behind me is Rose Bronstein. Her son, Nate
    Bronstein, forever 15, died by suicide after suffering severe
    cyberbullying over social media. And Samuel Chapman. His son,
    Sammy Chapman, forever 16, died after ingesting fentanyl-
    poisoned drugs that he easily acquired from a drug dealer
    operating on social media.
        Rose and Sam and the many other angel parents who traveled
    from across the country to be here today have collectively
    spent years fiercely and bravely advocating for urgently needed
    legislative reform in the hope that Congress acts to ensure
    that other families do not have to suffer such tragedies. We
    owe them a debt of gratitude.
        The record on the extent and severity of the social media-
    related harm impacting our children is clear, yet the social
    media industry continues to fail to protect our children.
        Thank you to the brave work of whistleblowers and attorneys
    general across the country.
        We know that the industry has an entrenched, durable
    conflict of interest when it comes to safety. Even in the face
    of mounting child fatalities, social media executives have
    prioritized growing the number of child users and engagement on
    their platforms over our children's safety, making a Federal
    legislative response absolutely essential and critically
    urgent. The social media industry has been too slow, their
    solutions too ineffective, their apathy, sadly, too apparent.
        And so we are grateful that the committee today recognizes
    that a broad approach with multiple tactics are needed:
    resources for education; accountability and rules for
    platforms; research; privacy reforms; and, critically, safety
    technology.
        I would like to highlight Sammy's Law.
        One of the most effective ways for parents to protect
    children is by using third-party safety software, which can
    provide alerts to parents when dangerous content is shared
    through children's social media accounts, enabling lifesaving
    interventions at critical moments.
        For example, if a child is suffering severe cyberbullying
    via social media, then a parent who has received an alert
    through third-party safety software can immediately provide
    critical support.
        We know that this intervention is highly effective. Over
    the last several years, safety software companies have provided
    alerts to parents that have protected millions of children,
    saving numerous lives.
        Sammy's Law will finally provide families with this option
    on all major social media platforms, while also substantially
    increasing data security and child privacy over the status quo.
    We urge this committee to pass this bipartisan, commonsense
    legislation that will save lives.
        American families have sat for years living in quiet
    despair, watching social media steal from their children's
    potential and wellbeing. We are hopeful that this year this
    committee can join together and deliver the solutions families
    so desperately need.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Berkman follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you so very much.
        Now I will recognize Mr. Lekas for his 5 minutes.
        You are recognized, sir.

                        STATEMENT OF PAUL LEKAS

        Mr. Lekas. Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member Schakowsky,
    and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
    to appear before you today.
        My name is Paul Lekas, and I serve as executive vice
    president for the Software & Information Industry Association.
    SIIA represents nearly 400 organizations at the forefront of
    innovation, from startups to global leaders in AI, cloud
    computing, education, technology, and more.
        Our mission is to support policies that foster a healthy
    information ecosystem. That cannot occur without responsible
    data use. We share the subcommittee's goal: making the internet
    a safer place for all. We appreciate that the subcommittee has
    taken a fresh look at how to achieve this. We are here to urge
    passage of bipartisan legislation that protects online youth
    privacy and safety.
        It is exactly for this reason that we worked closely with
    industry and policymakers to develop our Child and Teen Privacy
    and Safety Principles in 2024. Many of the themes in the
    principles are reflected in provisions of the bills under
    consideration today. I would like to highlight a few of these.
        First is data minimization. Companies must be required to
    minimize the collection of personal data from youth and
    restrict how that data is used. This is widely recognized as a
    best practice by privacy experts and is even more important in
    the youth context.
        Second, we believe companies should not advertise to youth
    based on their online behavior, nor should they create profiles
    of youth for targeted advertising. Contextual advertising
    should remain permitted to ensure that youth receive age-
    appropriate content.
        Third is empowerment and transparency. Legislation should
    incentivize companies to provide easy-to-use tools that allow
    families control over their settings and data. Transparency is
    key to building trust and helping families make informed
    decisions.
        Finally, we need national consistency. The internet is not
    partitioned by State lines. The current patchwork of State
    regulations creates confusion for both platforms and consumers.
    A Federal law must be strong and preemptive to ensure all
    American children have the same high level of protection.
        As Congress considers new legislation, a threshold is to
    strike the right balance between the Constitution's protection
    of free expression and the governmental interest in youth
    safety. Thus far, many online safety laws have failed to strike
    that balance.
        Several States have proposed inherently content-based
    regulations, requiring platforms to judge speech as harmful or
    detrimental. These regulations trigger strict scrutiny, and
    courts have historically struck them down for being overbroad
    and infringing on the free expression of adults and minors,
    including content reflective of their own religious or
    political speech.
        Recent case law provides a roadmap. The Supreme Court in
    2025 confirmed that age verification is constitutional when
    targeting sites with unprotected sexually explicit material. On
    the other hand, the Ninth Circuit in 2024 warned that broadly
    requiring platforms to assess the risk of harm can transform a
    design regulation into an unconstitutional content regulation.
        Legislating in this area is possible but requires
    precision. There is much that is permissible: securing data,
    restricting certain features, leveraging nontechnical tools
    like digital literacy.
        Vague duty-of-care models, like the Senate version of KOSA,
    that require filtering content based on subjective harm will
    invite and fail constitutional scrutiny. The version of KOSA
    before this subcommittee reflects a serious attempt to grapple
    with this challenge.
        In addition to creating new tools, we support modernizing
    older ones, like COPPA. We support codifying recent FTC
    regulations and, crucially, strengthening the privacy
    protections at the intersection of COPPA and FERPA. We must
    ensure that when schools contract with vendors, student data is
    used solely for educational purposes and we are not
    overburdening our families.
        We also urge Congress to avoid unintended consequences in
    two important but very different areas.
        The first is age assurance. Mandating age verification
    requires collecting sensitive data, often government IDs, from
    all users, not just kids. We should instead incentivize age
    estimation and parental controls which protect youth without
    creating high-value data repositories for cyber criminals. We
    must also recognize that everyone in the ecosystem has a role
    to play.
        The second involves the collection and use of third-party
    data. Many institutions rely on data about minors for essential
    services, like extending auto insurance to teen drivers,;
    helping youth to develop credit history; protecting minors from
    identify theft; college scholarships; financial aid; countering
    human trafficking--the list goes on. We should prevent actors
    from misusing youth data without disrupting vital, societally
    necessary practices.
        Online safety and privacy for children and teens requires a
    holistic approach. There is no silver bullet. There is room for
    legislation, and we are pleased the subcommittee is considering
    an array of bills to identify the right mix.
        I welcome your questions and look forward to continuing to
    work with you to advance legislation to keep youths safe while
    preserving the internet as a resource for learning and
    connection.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lekas follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Lekas.
        Now I recognize Ms. Ruane for your 5 minutes. You are
    recognized.

                        STATEMENT OF KATE RUANE

        Ms. Ruane. Thank you so much.
        Thank you, Chair Bilirakis, Ranking Member Schakowsky,
    Chair Guthrie, and Ranking Member Pallone, for the opportunity
    to testify today.
        I am Kate Ruane, director of the Free Expression Project at
    the Center for Democracy & Technology.
        Children will use online services for their entire lives.
    The subcommittee is right to focus on their future.
        I would like to raise five points essential to protecting
    children online.
        First, Congress should address root causes of online harms,
    including privacy. Comprehensive consumer data privacy
    legislation is the best way to protect everyone online.
        Currently, many online services' business models are based
    on advertising sales powered by platforms' collection, use, and
    sale of personal information. This is harmful because it is
    privacy invasive, increasing the risks of data breaches. It is
    also deficient because it ignores better signals of what users
    value about online services by conflating engagement with user
    preference.
        Congress could realign this business model to benefit
    everyone through comprehensive privacy legislation.
        Enhancing children's privacy protections is also a laudable
    goal. Measures like COPPA 2.0 and Don't Sell Kids' Data Act,
    crafted properly, would address some of the root causes of harm
    to kids online.
        But the bills under consideration today put the FTC in
    charge of enforcement. At the same time, the current
    administration is undermining its independence and ability to
    enforce the law fairly.
        As the committee considers how to protect kids, it must
    also ensure that the FTC executes its policies to protect all
    children and support the rule of law.
        Second, protecting children includes protecting their right
    to express themselves online. Minors use social media for
    everything, including to access news, communicate with family
    and friends, do their schoolwork, and create art.
        Children have First Amendment rights, and as Justice Scalia
    wrote, ``Only in relatively narrow and well-defined
    circumstances may the government bar public dissemination of
    protected materials to them.''
        We are encouraged that today's Kids Online Safety Act
    narrows the overly broad duty of care in an attempt to grapple
    with the tension between ensuring safety and protecting free
    expression. This is a difficult balance to strike, but it is
    preferable to flatly banning minors from accessing critical
    speech services like social media. We hope to work with the
    committee as the bill moves forward.
        Third, age assurance creates significant privacy risks that
    should be mitigated in legislation. Age verification and
    assurance raise significant concerns for all users' rights. To
    name just two, age-assurance techniques mean either more
    collection or more processing of sensitive data, leading to
    increased risks of data breaches which could include people's
    IDs or biometric information. Age assurance also chills online
    engagement with sensitive topics that people want to keep
    private.
        These concerns are not theoretical. Researchers at Georgia
    Tech have a forthcoming study demonstrating that the privacy
    and security concerns related to the use of age-assurance
    techniques are playing out in realtime, with increased risks
    for end users.
        If Congress nevertheless feels obligated to impose age-
    assurance requirements, it should mitigate the risks by
    requiring the highest levels of privacy guardrails, including
    data minimization, deletion, reliance on high-quality data
    transparency and accountability.
        Fourth, creating good policy requires taking into account
    the perspectives of minors and their caregivers. CDT has
    conducted research asking a sample of teens and their parents
    about features of current child safety proposals.
        To give just two salient examples of their views: First,
    parents and teens expressed safety and privacy concerns with
    subjecting minors to age-assurance methods, preferring parent-
    centered approaches that enable parents to declare their
    children's age.
        Second, we found that teens preferred algorithmic
    recommendations. Teens trust these feeds precisely because they
    feel that they are in control of that content.
        Knowing what parents and minors want and how they currently
    navigate their online lives will improve policymaking at both
    companies and in legislatures.
        Finally, Congress must not unduly restrict States' ability
    to act. Many of the bills at issue today would preempt State
    laws and regulations that simply relate to the provisions in
    the bills. We are concerned that the ``relates to'' standard
    will broadly preempt many existing State laws and emerging
    legislation that provide significant protections to children
    online, even if State law would provide better protections for
    kids.
        To make matters worse, public reporting indicates that
    Congress may be negotiating a deal to pair a kids' safety
    package with the controversial provision preempting State laws
    on artificial intelligence. It would be ill-advised to broadly
    preempt States' ability to enact laws related to AI's impact
    without putting in place strong Federal protections at least
    equal in scope to any such preemption.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
    forward to your questions.1A\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Ms. Ruane's prepared statement has been retained in committee
    files and is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/
    20251202/118714/HHRG-119-IF17-Wstate-RuaneK-20251202.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much. We appreciate that.
        Now I will recognize Mr. Thayer for your 5 minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF JOEL THAYER

        Mr. Thayer. Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member Schakowsky,
    and members of this esteemed committee, thank you for holding
    this incredibly important hearing to advance legislative
    solutions that ensures the health and safety of kids online.
        I am Joel Thayer. I am a practicing attorney, and I sit as
    president of the Digital Progress Institute, a think tank
    dedicated to finding bipartisan solutions in the tech and
    telecom policy spaces.
        Finding political consensus on incremental solutions to
    today's acute concerns in tech policy is at the core of our
    advocacy. Indeed, some of the bills before you today are based
    off of frameworks we helped develop.
        This hearing, coupled with its bevy of bills, makes a few
    things abundantly clear.
        First, we care about our children and their wellbeing, on
    and off their devices.
        Second, we are no longer satisfied with the status quo.
        In so many ways, today's youth are robbed of their
    innocence far more easily than ever before. This is thanks to
    the ubiquity of mobile devices and the services they host.
    Large tech platforms are inundating kids with lewd and
    lascivious exhibitions and even connecting them to child
    predators. This is well-documented. Senator Marsha Blackburn
    even went as far as describing Instagram as the ``premier sex-
    trafficking site in this country.''
        Despite what the tech companies trumpet in their press
    releases, parents are left with almost no resources to combat
    their encroachments.
        Worse, tech companies are, in fact, perpetuating the
    problem. Herein lies the rub. Big Tech's form of child
    exploitation pays very well. Our children are not only Big
    Tech's users but are also their product. Meta specifically
    targets young users and even places a monetary value of $270 on
    each child's head.
        But the issue is worse still. Children are not only feeding
    Big Tech algorithms to sell to advertisers but are also used to
    inform their respective AI programs--AI programs like chatbots
    that have already resulted in some child deaths by encouraging
    kids to commit suicide.
        At DPI, we are all for winning the AI war, but we do not
    believe children should serve as its casualties. It is why
    measures you are considering today are so essential to both
    ensuring that we remain dominant in the AI race and we protect
    our most vulnerable: our children.
        However, we cannot ignore the long road ahead to get these
    passed. Big Tech's lobby is not only fierce but also
    unrelenting. They mire the validities of these solutions by
    instilling fears of consumers forfeiting privacy and the
    stifling of speech. But this is all a farce.
        As to privacy, I say consider the source. Courts,
    regulators, and consumers have found every one of these
    companies to have violated their users' personal privacy.
        Take Apple, for instance, that proclaims your privacy is a
    ``fundamental human right.'' Discovery from a class action
    lawsuit, however, reveals that since October 2011 Apple had
    routinely recorded users' private conversations without their
    consent and disclosed those conversations to third parties,
    such as advertisers. Some of these disclosures included private
    conversations with their doctors. So much for privacy being a
    human right.
        One of Google's privacy violations was so egregious that
    the Federal Trade Commission created a first-of-its-kind
    settlement requiring Google to implement a comprehensive
    privacy program that it unbelievably didn't already have.
        Social media companies do not fare much better. Again, an
    FTC report found that social media companies like Snap, Meta,
    and TikTok have all engaged in vast surveillance of users, with
    lax privacy controls and inadequate safeguards for kids and
    teens. Point being, these companies are hardly an authority on
    proper privacy hygienics.
        As to free speech, I stand on the shoulders of Third
    Circuit Judge Paul Matey, who poignantly stated that Big Tech
    ``smuggles constitutional conceptions of a `free trade in
    ideas' into a digital cauldron of illicit loves that leap and
    boil with no oversight, no accountability, and no remedy.''
        And it is true. Big Tech has leveraged the admittedly messy
    First Amendment jurisprudence to turn our bulwark for free
    expression into a sword to cut down laws they frankly don't
    like.
        But here is the good news. The Supreme Court has created a
    clear pathway for these measures. To start, in TikTok v.
    Garland, the Supreme Court categorically rejected TikTok's
    argument that the mere regulation of an algorithm raises First
    Amendment scrutiny. Even better, the Court clarified that a law
    regulating a tech platform doesn't invite First Amendment
    review if the law's primary justification is not content-based,
    even if its ancillary justifications are.
        In sum, the bills before us today, particularly the App
    Store Accountability Act, the SCREEN Act, and the Kids Online
    Safety Act, have taken these considerations into account and
    are poised to resolve many of the challenges parents are facing
    in today's digital age with respect to child safety.
        With that, I appreciate the committee's time for inviting
    me to testify, and I look forward to all of your questions and
    working with you further.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Thayer follows:]
       [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you so much.
        Now I will begin the questioning and recognize myself for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Berkman, for too long the narrative has been that
    online safety is solely parents' responsibility. But, as you
    know, 80 percent of parents say that harms now outweigh the
    benefits and they feel completely outmatched by these highly
    complex platforms designed to keep their kids hooked.
        My bill, the Kids Online Safety Act--again, it is a
    discussion draft--fundamentally flips this dynamic. We require
    platforms to enable the strongest safeguards by default, rather
    than forcing parents to dig through multilayered menus to find
    these critical tools.
        Can you explain why shifting the burden of safety from the
    parent to the platform can change the trajectory of this dire
    safety crisis?
        Mr. Berkman. Thank you for the question, Chairman, and I
    think it is a very apt one. You are correct that parents across
    the country are frustrated, they are saddened, and they feel
    defeated.
        We work with hundreds of thousands of families, partnering
    with K-through-12 schools, teaching essential social media
    safety skills. And so we can hear from families on the ground
    nationwide.
        Children are using multiple platforms many hours a day with
    many different features, and they are not set to be safe, by
    design. And so we do believe that the provisions you have put
    forward in your legislation would materially move safety
    forward and ensure that parents are not battling for their
    children's safety alone.
        And I would note Sammy's Law, as well, would give parents
    one unified tool to help maximize safety. And so that is why we
    support that bill.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Thayer, in your testimony you state that KOSA, along
    with many of the other bills considered today, will resolve
    many of the challenges parents are facing in today's digital
    age with respect to child safety.
        KOSA includes numerous other protections such as parental
    controls, default settings, policies to address design
    features, and mandatory audits.
        Can you explain how KOSA will empower parents to protect
    their kids online and will hold Big Tech accountable?
        Mr. Thayer. Well, you took the word right out of my mouth.
    The keyword there is ``accountability.'' And right now there is
    absolutely none.
        At this point, we have to rely basically on their musings
    via press releases and other terms of service that we hope they
    will adhere to. And we have actual data to support that. At
    this time, TikTok, Meta, and the like all have so-called
    parental protections, and they all have failed miserably.
        The problem is that there are, frankly, no laws that
    actually articulate what their goals are and what they are
    responsible for. Things like KOSA, which I prefer over more
    general statutes, articulate clearly what these companies are
    responsible for doing and when they run afoul of those
    responsibilities and when we can enforce.
        At this point, they have no Sword of Damocles over their
    head, and even if they did, we wouldn't be able to cut it down
    to get the results that we need to protect kids and protect
    parents.
        So KOSA would go a long way in ensuring that the status quo
    is not going to be the status quo forever.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Lekas, in your testimony you call for online tools that
    empower children, teens, and families. In your view, are KOSA's
    requirements for platforms to implement new safeguards and
    parental controls workable?
        Mr. Lekas. Thank you for that question.
        In our sense--and we are still reviewing this with our
    members, but--the tools that would be required under KOSA are
    definitely workable. There's a number of companies that have
    implemented some of these tools already, but we need them to be
    implemented across the board. We need to protect all children
    on all platforms.
        The other thing I would say about KOSA is the requirements
    to establish procedures and processes and so forth seem really
    well designed to address the constitutional concerns that have
    come up with respect to earlier drafts of this legislation.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you very much.
        I will yield back.
        And I will recognize now the ranking member of the
    subcommittee, Ms. Schakowsky, for her 5 minutes of questioning.
        Ms. Schakowsky. OK.
        Ms. Ruane, I wanted to ask you, what is the biggest gap
    that you see right now, that if we were to begin right now to
    fix it, what do you think is the biggest gap that we are
    encountering?
        Ms. Ruane. Thank you, Representative Schakowsky, for the
    question.
        I see a number of gaps that would be left by the
    legislation. Even with the 19 bills, I see a number of gaps
    that would be left.
        The biggest one that I see is the preemption standard that
    is within all of the bills that are currently before the
    committee. We are concerned that the ``relates to'' preemption
    standard will preempt State laws that specifically protect kids
    and also State laws that have general protections that also
    apply to children, so State UDAP laws, State tort laws, and
    also State comprehensive privacy laws that have specific
    protections for children, including enhanced protections for
    children's data as sensitive data.
        Texas, for example, protects all children's data as
    sensitive data at a higher standard than the current COPPA
    does. The current preemption standard under the bills that we
    are considering today would likely preempt that law as applied
    to kids.
        If we finish this process with the ``relates to'' standard
    in place, you will likely wind up with children having less
    protections at the State level than they do today, and we will
    have failed to do our jobs.
        So I think that is one of the biggest gaps that I see.
        I also see that there is not enough--in any of the bills
    that require age verification, we do not see sufficient
    guardrails to protect and require privacy and security
    practices within the age-assurance requirements and to ensure
    that any age-assurance techniques that are used are fairly and
    equitably accessible to everyone that has to go through the
    age-assurance process.
        Ms. Schakowsky. You know, when I listen to you, I think
    there are so many things that need to be changed as soon as
    possible, and the idea that the States cannot do anything in
    the legislation is quite shocking to me. And so I just really
    think that we have to go back to the drawing board and make
    sure that we know.
        The other thing I wanted to ask you is about LGBTQ kids and
    making sure that they have some authority to be there, to be
    heard. And I wonder if you could comment on that.
        Ms. Ruane. Absolutely. Thank you for the question, Ranking
    Member.
        We are significantly concerned that any censorship
    incentives within some of the bills that are before us today
    and within the Senate's version of KOSA could lead to the
    censorship of LGBTQ speech--access to that content by LGBTQ
    kids and speech by LGBTQ kids, because oftentimes that speech
    can be miscategorized as sexual speech or as speech that falls
    into categories that platforms look to take down because they
    are concerned about enforcement and about harms to children
    related to accessing sexualized content.
        Our second concern with respect to that is that the bills
    at issue today delegate authority, enforcement authority, to
    this current FTC, which has demonstrated its willingness to
    target groups that it disfavors, including transgender
    families--including transgender people, their families, and
    their caregivers.
        If we do not have an independent FTC that is enforcing the
    law fairly as it applies to all children and protects all
    children, we have significant concerns about how these bills
    would operate in practice, even if the way that they are
    currently constituted is neutral and would protect everyone.
        Ms. Schakowsky. So appreciated.
        And, with that, I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Bilirakis. The gentlelady yields back.
        I now recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr.
    Guthrie, for his 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        And thank you all for being here.
        So, Mr. Berkman, there is no single solution for protecting
    kids online, and that is why we are advancing a comprehensive
    strategy of nearly two dozen bills that build in layers of
    protection, from age verification in COPPA 2.0 privacy
    protections to parental tools and default by design.
        Can you speak to the urgency of this moment and the need
    for Congress to protect kids and children and teens online?
        Mr. Berkman. Yes. I appreciate the question.
        We are seeing, still, an alarming disconnect in terms of
    awareness of how severe and pervasive the harms of social media
    are. We are seeing millions of children across the country
    harmed. We are on the ground, working with families, and the
    actual data is absolutely stunning and the stories are
    heartbreaking.
        And so I appreciate the approach taken by the committee. We
    need to find consensus and pass meaningful social media safety
    legislation this year to protect our children.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
        And to add to that, Mr. Lekas and Mr. Thayer, can you
    explain why we need a layered, comprehensive strategy rather
    than just one single bill?
        Mr. Thayer. I thank you for the question. And I think the
    question sort of beckons the answer, is that individual layers
    require different policy solutions. The same thing that would
    apply to a social media company may not be apropos to maybe
    something on the app store layer, even the operating system
    layer or device layer. Each one of these folks have a role to
    play--or, each actor has a role to play, and every policy
    solution should be attuned to what those particular roles are.
        So a comprehensive approach, whether it is privacy,
    competition, or even child safety, has to be administratively
    thought through. So, again, in full agreement with what I have
    heard today. And it seems to be the case that each individual
    layer requires a special sensitivity to what those particular
    areas do and needs a policy solution that meets them where they
    are.
        Mr. Guthrie. Good. Thank you.
        Mr. Lekas?
        Mr. Lekas. Thank you for that question.
        I think the overall goal that seems to be the consensus of
    everyone in this room is, we need to protect youth online. We
    need to improve the privacy protections and the safety
    protections for youth.
        And I think stepping back and looking at all the different
    components here and trying to identify what is the best way to
    do each of these components is a really smart way to proceed.
    Congress has been debating legislation in this space for years,
    and it is urgent to move forward now. So we appreciate the
    approach taken by the committee.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
        And, also, Mr. Thayer, in my opening statement I emphasized
    that a law that gets struck down by courts won't protect a
    single child.
        From a legal and constitutional perspective, why is it so
    critical that Congress can step in to establish a single,
    uniform national standard? And how does this package of bills
    learn from the defects of laws that have failed judicial
    review?
        Mr. Thayer. Well, as someone that really does appreciate
    the structure of our Constitution and especially the Federal
    structure that they have created and, again, leveraging the
    insights from different Justices, much smarter legal minds than
    my own--Justice Brandeis, for instance, said that the States
    are the laboratories of our democracy. But, at the same time,
    those laboratories yield results.
        And I think what we have seen in the past 10 years, absent
    Federal insight as to what Congress actually wants or what the
    national standard is, has allowed for a lot of these
    experiments to go all the way through the courts. The courts
    have evaluated each one of these standards and have given, as I
    said in my opening testimony, a pathway for Congress to
    actually set those standards.
        Because part of that experiment is not just only seeing
    where Congress can step in, it is seeing the limitations that
    States have in fully protecting children. A child in Texas
    should be equally protected as a child in California or in Iowa
    and everywhere else. And that is where I think the Federal
    standard is probably preferable in many cases. But, again, that
    comes from a lot of the insights that we are getting from
    States.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thank you.
        And that concludes my questions. I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee,
    Mr. Pallone, for his 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Bilirakis.
        Data brokers collect and sell billions of data points on
    nearly every consumer in the United States, including children.
    And while I believe that comprehensive privacy is the preferred
    path to addressing the risk of data brokers, I also believe it
    is imperative to do what we can now to prevent data brokers
    from exploiting the personal data of our kids.
        So I have a series of questions for Ms. Ruane. If you could
    just answer them quickly, because otherwise I won't get through
    them.
        First is, why is it so important that kids and teens are
    able to enter adulthood without an extensive profile already
    built of their online activities and inferences about who they
    are?
        Ms. Ruane. Thank you, Ranking Member.
        Well, kids are growing up online, right? They are sharing
    all of their information all of the time. They are engaging
    constantly. And their data is also being collected constantly,
    in ways that they might not understand or even be aware of or
    be developmentally capable of making decisions about. They
    don't know they are making a trail that is going to follow them
    forever.
        But what is most important is that children are not
    commodities, and their lives and privacy have to be respected.
    Ensuring that their information cannot be bought and sold by
    shady data brokers will meaningfully protect their privacy in
    general and their ability to enter adulthood without a profile
    that will follow them for the rest of time.
        Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you.
        Now, many of the bills being considered for this hearing
    today contain broad preemption clauses, and in many cases
    preempting any State laws that relate to the legislation.
        So the next question is, What are some unintended
    consequences of such broad preemption? Could common law and
    product liability claims currently being used to hold tech
    companies accountable be impacted by that?
        Ms. Ruane. Yes, absolutely. We are concerned that currently
    extant State protections that protect everyone will no longer
    be able to protect children across all 50 States.
        One other thing to note is, a lot of the bills today focus
    on legacy platforms and services that have existed for a while,
    and they do not focus on emerging technologies like generative
    AI. If we institute a broad ``relates to'' preemption standard
    across all of these bills, we run the risk of preempting
    States' ability to act on emerging technologies quickly.
        Mr. Pallone. OK.
        Many of the bills being discussed today also have
    provisions that expand access to the data of teens, both to
    third parties and to parents, in the name of increased safety.
    And while I encourage parents and teens to have conversation
    about teens' online activity, that also needs to be balanced
    against teens' rights to privacy.
        So, as we consider the bills before us, how do we best
    balance privacy and safety? Are there any specific provisions
    in these bills that pose a threat to kids' privacy?
        Ms. Ruane. Absolutely. Parents and kids, families, need
    tools to help them navigate their online lives, and CDT fully
    supports giving parents those tools and children those tools,
    but we are concerned about any provisions that give parents
    access to and control over the content of kids' communications.
        One thing that the current version of KOSA does well is it
    ensures that platforms do not have to disclose the contents of
    kids' communication. But today's new version of COPPA 2.0, for
    example, contains language that might allow parents to delete
    their kids' data and to delete content that they may have
    created.
        When we talk to parents and kids about whether they wanted
    to have those sorts of tools, parents told us that that seemed
    overly burdensome for parents, and kids told us that seemed
    overly invasive to them.
        Moreover, as you noted in your opening statement, not all
    kids are growing up in families that are perfectly supportive,
    and some kids are growing up in situations where they don't
    have families at all.
        Mr. Pallone. Well, that is sort of my last question----
        Ms. Ruane. Yes.
        Mr. Pallone [continuing]. Because I know we're going to run
    out of time. But the unfortunate reality is that there are
    parents who abuse and neglect their children. For these kids,
    access to safe spaces online can be critical.
        So the last question is, how do we foster healthy
    connections online while ensuring that kids and teens are
    protected? Are there potential risks to children and teens in
    dangerous or hostile family environments caused by the measures
    in these bills?
        Ms. Ruane. Well, when we talked to teenagers about how they
    use, for example, direct messaging services, they told us that
    what they really want are more controls over who gets to
    message them--so the ability to reduce their own visibility
    online. Congress could also incentivize more friction or speed
    bumps in interaction with, kind of, unknown profiles or unknown
    adults.
        We also took note that one of the bills today would
    restrict access to ephemeral messaging. Now, while it is
    understandable that in some circumstances ephemeral messaging
    could be linked to harm, we also want to note that it could
    also be used to protect kids' privacy.
        So, for example, children might communicate with each
    other, teens might communicate with each other through racy
    text messages. Ephemeral messaging could reduce the likelihood
    that those messages be used for abusive purposes like
    nonconsensual intimate image distribution at a later date.
        Ephemeral messages could also be helpful for children who
    have relationships with domestic violence victims or who are
    domestic violence victims themselves to ensure safety and to
    ensure their ability to communicate privately without risk to
    their physical selves.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
        And the gentleman yields back.
        We will recognize the vice chairman of the subcommittee,
    Mr. Fulcher, for his 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        A question for Mr. Berkman. This has to do with
    recommendations you might have for young adults who are
    engaging with some self-harming behavior.
        In your testimony, you cite some statistics having to do
    with self-harm, cyberbullying, with eating disorders, and--and
    that particular topic. And we have also learned through various
    court filings that social media companies have been knowing
    about this. They know this is going on.
        Not long ago, we had some hearings with TikTok, and we
    learned that they had sent 13-year-olds even more content on
    self-harm and with eating disorders. And that came out also
    that Meta had pushed body-image content when teens had
    expressed some dissatisfaction with their bodies. So these
    social media companies, they know about this.
        And I dealt with this in a previous life as a State
    legislator, with some mental health issues.
        And I just want to ask you, from your perspective, what
    recommendations or guidelines can you offer for this body here
    to address this growing problem?
        Mr. Berkman. Thank you, Congressman, for the question, and
    I appreciate it.
        It is true and something we really need to recognize across
    this country that these companies have a durable inherent
    conflict of interest between our children's safety and their
    profits. And so, last decade, we have seen child harmed after
    child harmed. And so one of the bills that we really support
    here is a bill called Sammy's Law, and that would give parents,
    families access to what we call third-party safety software--
    software not connected to the social media platforms
    themselves--that can provide families with critical lifesaving
    alerts, like eating disorder-related content, content involving
    suicidal ideation, so that families can provide lifesaving
    support at the exact right critical moment, which right now
    they are not getting, and because of that we are seeing
    fatalities.
        Mr. Fulcher. So engagement with the parents, and that
    third-party software is a help.
        Mr. Berkman. Third-party software, and I would note, is
    significantly--it adds to privacy in a significant way over the
    status quo. This is technology that we now have that can limit
    alerts to parents on a list of harms that every Member of this
    body agrees on and that children vitally need support to
    protect themselves from.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that. I am going to come back to
    you here in just a second, but I want to get a question to Mr.
    Thayer here.
        We really need real consequences for bad actors and the
    enforcement that goes with it. In all the bills we consider
    here today, they place regulatory obligations on tech platforms
    and include both FTC's first fine authority and authorizes
    State attorneys general to engage with this.
        First of all, do you see that as adequate, and can you
    discuss the benefits of these enforcement tools and how they
    will actually be used to hold some of these tech firms
    accountable?
        Mr. Thayer. Yes, our DPS position is the more cops on the
    beat, the better. State attorney generals have a very special
    role when it comes to consumer protection, as does the FTC. I
    think one value of these bills is that they are specific
    authority statutes as opposed to general authority statutes,
    which means you can target the specific harms on both the
    Federal and the State level on exactly what they want.
        And in terms of combining the two, you have the FTC, which
    has a giant remit already--they have a national remit--whereas
    State attorney generals can react almost in real time or, if
    not, very close to, to the local issues that have--that they
    can observe.
        So I work very closely with State attorney generals'
    offices in California, Texas, and Louisiana, and I can tell you
    that they look at these statutes and they--they look at these
    statutes in a very comprehensive way, and they also look at it
    from the perspective of protecting their populations in
    particular.
        So, again, in my view, you need both. You can't just have--
    put all the reliance on the FTC. You are going to need some
    State attorney generals looking at this as well.
        Mr. Fulcher. Great. Thank you.
        Mr. Berkman, I have got 20 seconds left. Any input on that?
        Mr. Berkman. Yes, we agree you need a robust enforcement
    regime. State attorneys general kind of added to that regime.
    We have leadership across the country from Mississippi,
    Illinois, Arkansas, and California attorneys general
    prosecuting in an effective way violations of law by the social
    media industry that is impacting children. They are doing it
    collaboratively, which means pooled resources, that means
    effective enforcement, that means saved lives.
        Mr. Fulcher. Great. Thank you, Mr. Berkman.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. The gentleman yields back.
        Now recognize Ms. Castor from the great State of Florida.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    teeing up action to address the privacy, intrusion,
    surveillance, and targeting of kids online and the growing
    harms due to the malign design of online apps that lead to
    physical and mental harm to young people.
        I want to thank the witnesses, but the panel is missing a
    parent. There are many here today who could have testified. You
    are missing a young person. There are other young people here
    who could have testified. You are missing a psychologist or a
    pediatrician. And one of the many whistleblowers, former tech
    company employees, to testify on the insidious schemes to
    addict and exploit children even as tech company executives
    knew of the harm to kids.
        It was 2021 when Francis Haugen, the Facebook
    whistleblower, testified before Congress that Facebook Meta
    built a business model that prioritizes its profit over the
    safety of its users. She said Facebook repeatedly encountered
    conflicts between its own profits and safety and that Facebook
    consistently resolved those conflicts in favor of its own
    profits. She went on to testify that Facebook became a
    trillion-dollar company by paying for its profits with our
    safety, including the safety of our children. Doesn't this
    remind you of the tobacco company propaganda of years ago?
        This committee knows too well that the big tech companies
    take advantage of young people online. That is why it is so
    disappointing that Republicans in the House are offering weak,
    ineffectual versions of COPPA and KOSA. These versions are a
    gift to the big tech companies and they are a slap in the face
    to the parents, the experts, and the advocates, to bipartisan
    Members of Congress, who have worked long and hard on strong
    child protection bills to protect them from what is happening
    online.
        So despite a broad agreement among House Members and Senate
    Members, we really need to address these watered-down bills,
    and I am hoping that the rank-and-file membership and the
    members of this committee will chart that course. For example,
    we should not put a ceiling on kids' protections at the State
    level or stifle the good work of the States or weaken knowledge
    standards that are critical to holding tech companies
    accountable.
        Ms. Ruane, you have already addressed preemption. You said
    a lot of the preemption language in the bills would provide
    less protection to kids. You have touched on weaker
    enforcement. That is contained here. You talked about data
    minimization.
        How does--there is now a difference in the knowledge
    standards too. The Senate versions are kind of viewed as the
    strong bipartisan versions. How does the Senate knowledge
    standard further protect young people compared to what is in
    the House version?
        Ms. Ruane. Thank you, Representative Castor. Yes, there is
    a difference in the knowledge standard in the bills at issue
    today. Particularly in COPPA 2.0, we see a tiered knowledge
    standard that preserves actual knowledge for the vast majority
    of actors, and that is, you know, basically preserving or
    maintaining the status quo. The Senate version of COPPA 2.0 has
    an updated knowledge standard, which would apply to all actors.
    Honestly, this is a difficult balance to strike, but the hope
    is to land on a standard that does not permit a company to look
    the other way when they know there are kids on their service,
    while avoiding incentivizing broad age assurance across the
    entire internet.
        While we think there needs to be changes to House COPPA, we
    fully support enhancing protections for children's privacy, and
    we hope that we can all work together to update COPPA 2.0 in a
    way that would do so.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you for that. Do you want to say anything
    else about enforcement as well? You already talked a little bit
    about the FTC, but when we are talking about kids, isn't it
    appropriate to have a number of tools in the toolbox to make
    sure they are safe and tech is held accountable?
        Ms. Ruane. Absolutely. It is not just appropriate, it is
    also how Congress has approached protecting children
    historically. Congress has generally not chosen to preempt
    States' ability to act and has always ensured that there are
    more tools in the toolbox. It was good to hear and it is good
    to see that the FTC would have things like first fine authority
    and that State attorneys general would have the ability to act,
    but we also need to see things like private rights of action as
    a force multiplier for families and kids to be able to enforce
    their rights under any statute that Congress passes.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you for that.
        I also want to make sure that I get into the record a
    number of provisions. Mr. Chairman, at the end of the hearing,
    we will have a number of documents to submit for the record, a
    lot of letters from groups: the Federal Trade Commission
    September 2024 report that I recommend to the committee, the--
    some of the whistleblower testimony from the United States
    Senate that is very illuminating, some of the other reports
    from various medical societies. I think all of this would
    really inform our decision making as we move forward.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
        Ms. Castor. And I will ask unanimous consent at the
    appropriate time.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Absolutely.
        All right. Now we will recognize Dr. Dunn. He is the vice
    chair of the full committee. We will recognize you for 5
    minutes, sir, for your questions.
        Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I have been fortunate to wear a lot of hats in my life. I
    was a soldier. I served my community as a sergeant for 35
    years. But the title that keeps me up at night, that drives me,
    is granddad. My sixth grandchild was born yesterday, as you
    know, Gus. I made it look easy.
        But we are living through a crisis right now. We have
    handed our children devices that are more powerful than the
    most powerful computers, sent men to the moon, but we failed to
    install the digital equivalent of seatbelts and smoke detectors
    on these things.
        As a doctor, I see--when I see a patient bleeding, I just
    apply a tourniquet. I don't call a committee meeting. Right now
    our children are bleeding. Our children and our grandchildren
    are being targeted, groomed, and exploited on social media
    platforms that are designed--intentionally designed--to hide
    the evidence of their exploitation.
        That is why I introduced H.R. 6257, the Safe Messaging Act
    for Kids, call it SMK Act of 2025. This bill is a direct
    intervention to stop two specific mechanisms that predators use
    to hunt our children: ephemeral messaging and unsolicited
    contact. The problem is disappearing evidence.
        Let's talk about ephemeral messaging. This is a fancy term
    for a dangerous feature that messages automatically delete
    themselves after they are viewed. Imagine if a drug dealer
    could sell fentanyl to a teenager in a school hallway, and then
    the moment the transaction is done, any security camera footage
    automatically erased itself. That is what is happening online.
        Predators love ephemeral messaging. It is their best
    friend. It destroys any evidence of grooming, cyberbullying,
    illicit transactions before a parent ever sees it and before
    law enforcement can build a case. My bill would put an end to
    this.
        Under section 3 of the SMK Act, social media platforms
    would be strictly prohibited from offering ephemeral messaging
    to any user they know or willfully disregard is a minor under
    17. If you are a tech company and you know your user is a 14-
    year-old child, you should not be handing them a tool to
    destroy evidence. It is that simple. The solution is, of
    course, parental authority.
        The second part of this bill is unsolicited contact. Right
    now in the digital world, strangers can walk up to our children
    and whisper in their ear. We would never allow that on a
    playground. Why do we allow it in direct messages? The SMK Act
    mandates parental direct messaging controls. We are putting
    parents back in the driver's seat.
        For children under 13, the bill requires the direct
    messaging features be disabled by default. A 10-year-old should
    not be fielding messages from strangers. If that feature is to
    be turned on, a parent must proactively give verifiable
    consent. For teenagers under 17, parents have to have the tools
    to see who is knocking on the door.
        The bill requires platforms to notify parents of requests
    for unapproved contacts and gives the parents the power to
    approve or deny those requests before any messaging occurs.
    This isn't about hovering. This isn't helicopter parenting. It
    is just about parenting. It is about giving moms and dads the
    dashboard they need to keep kids safe.
        Mr. Chairman, in medicine, you know, we take an oath: Do no
    harm. For too long we have allowed social media platforms to
    violate that oath, and they have built features that harm our
    children, drive engagement by our children. The Safe Messaging
    Act for Kids is a commonsense, you know, treatment plan for
    this, and it preserves the evidence of crimes, it restores
    parental authority that protects our kids, and I urge my
    colleagues to support this legislation.
        I will submit questions for the panel. Sorry I have used up
    my time, but I wanted to make a case for this.
        Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Fulcher [presiding]. Thank you.
        The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Soto, is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Today we are here to empower parents to protect kids
    online, and Congress needs to do its job and make rules of the
    road. It has been 5 years since the Children's Online Safety
    Act has been filed--5 years too long to address this critical
    issue.
        When we look at the internet and social media, we see
    education, entertainment, communication with friends--all great
    things for kids. But we also see a quagmire of issues that they
    could fall into, which is why we need guardrails to protect
    children's privacy, stop access to adult content, unbridled
    chatbots, even predators online.
        So today we have 19 bills, including our bipartisan
    Promoting a Safe Internet for Minors Act with Representative
    Laurel Lee, my fellow Floridian. H.R. 6289 directs the Federal
    Trade Commission to conduct nationwide education campaigns to
    promote safe internet use by minors, encouraging best practices
    for educators, parents, platforms, and minors, and sharing the
    latest trends about negatively impacting--that are negatively
    impacting minors online, and making publicly available online
    safety education.
        The only issue is we have an FTC where President Trump
    fired both the Democrats, and now there are only three out of
    the full five strength that they need, and the courts have been
    taking their sweet time to address this issue. And so it is
    critical that we as a committee make sure we get the FTC up to
    strength and hold the President accountable for this unlawful
    action.
        We also need to limit kids' access to chatbots. We saw a
    tragic story from Central Florida--of Sewell Setzer III's
    story, a ninth-grader from Orlando Christian Prep. He died by
    suicide last year at age 14 after being prompted by a chatbot
    that he was listening to. Sewell's mother, Megan Garcia,
    testified in the Senate Judiciary Committee in September of
    this year. In her testimony she described how Sewell was
    manipulated by the chatbot and sent sexually explicit material.
    She has filed a wrongful death suit--lawsuit.
        This is why bills like the SAFE Bots Act that we see which
    would develop AI policies to prevent harm, AI disclosure
    prohibiting them from posing as licensed professionals, and
    then enforcement's key, the FTC, which we need to fully restore
    to its full strength, and State attorneys general.
        And then back in Florida we see new laws that restrict use
    under 14 years of age, parental consent 14 and 15 years of age,
    and it was just recently upheld on appeal. And lastly, we are
    working with local sheriffs like the Osceola County Sheriff's
    Office to get the millions in funding to protect kids online
    with the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force,
    absolutely critical for our local kids.
        Ms. Ruane, we saw President Trump illegally fire two of the
    Democratic members of the FTC. Even with all these bills that
    we have filed, even if they pass, how does the decimation of
    the FTC affect enforcement of laws meant to protect kids
    online?
        Ms. Ruane. Thank you, Representative Soto. So the FTC has
    historically had--as an independent agency, has historically
    had a reputation of protecting consumers regardless of the
    party in office. The current administration is undermining that
    reputation and threatening the FTC's ability to enforce the law
    fairly.
        If--I say this in my testimony, but I will say it here
    again: Laws are only as good as their enforcement mechanisms.
    They are only as good and fair as their enforcers. Laws without
    good enforcement are, at best, just words on the page, but at
    worst they are weapons to be used by the powerful against the
    powerless. And the worry with the FTC becoming a politicized
    institution is that, rather than enforcing the laws to protect
    everyone and uphold the rule of law, it will instead become a
    partisan tool that could be used and weaponized against those
    that the administration, whoever occupies the office, dislikes
    or, on the other hand, favors.
        If, for example, you know, the President has a particular
    relationship with a particular company or a particular CEO, we
    are concerned that the politicization of an FTC could lead to
    favorable treatment and lack of enforcement of laws against
    those companies and, on the other side, targeting or
    retribution against those who would----
        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Ms. Ruane.
        Mr. Thayer, we talked a little bit about bots being out of
    control. What rules really do we need to help make sure we
    protect our kids?
        Mr. Thayer. Thank you, Congressman. Look, we are going to
    need a lot. I mean, the rate at which this adoption is
    happening is unlike anything that we have ever seen, even with
    respect to social media and particularly when it comes to kids.
    Kids are now using chatbots for everything under the sun,
    whether it is----
        Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Thayer, time has expired. If you could
    wrap really quick, please.
        Mr. Thayer. Sure. In general, solutions that you guys have
    proposed today can go a long way. Also, what Senator Hawley has
    introduced is another interesting avenue, along with Senator
    Blumenthal. So I look forward to working with you and your
    office on this.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that. Time has expired.
        The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Mrs.
    Cammack, please.
        Mrs. Cammack. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to
    our witnesses and for everyone in the audience here today.
        As a new mom, today's hearing certainly is hitting pretty
    close to home. Today we are reviewing 19 bills, but we are
    missing a critical one: the App Store Freedom Act. This bill
    would empower parents and consumers, foster innovation, and
    most importantly protect kids online and their data. This bill
    has broad bipartisan support on this committee and is a
    critical step in keeping kids safe online.
        I want folks to imagine for a moment what it would look
    like if parents--parents--were allowed to build an online
    marketplace, an app marketplace, where they could vet the apps
    and knew for sure that their kids were safe. Today that is not
    possible. And only our bill, the App Store Freedom Act, can do
    that.
        I would also like to point out for the record that last
    year alone, in 2024, the Apple App Store facilitated nearly
    $406 billion in sales. So taking that into consideration, the
    30 percent tax, no matter how you slice it that Apple requires
    of these apps and their subscriptions, is a multibillion-dollar
    industry. So it would stand to reason that Apple has a couple
    billion reasons why they don't want to protect kids online and
    they don't want parents creating their own marketplace.
        So I am going to jump to our questions. Panel, we are going
    to go rapid fire to start.
        In 2024, in my home State of Florida, 13- and 14-year-old
    boys were using nudify apps to take pictures of their 12-year-
    old classmates and digitally unclothe them. The perpetrators--
    because that is what they are--then shared those images with
    their classmates and others. Another investigation into Apple
    showed that it allowed a nudify app in its App Store and then
    rated it, Apple rated that app as appropriate for 4-year-olds.
    Four-year-olds.
        So for the panel, rapid fire. We will start with you, Mr.
    Berkman: Do you think that app stores should be allowed to have
    children accessing nudify apps, yes or no?
        Mr. Berkman. No.
        Mrs. Cammack. Mr. Lekas?
        Mr. Lekas. No.
        Ms. Ruane. No.
        Mr. Thayer. Hell no.
        Mrs. Cammack. Excellent. I like this rapid fire.
        For the panel, yes or no: Today Apple and Google profit by
    taking a 30 percent commission for sales of app subscriptions,
    apps that include the ability to nudify underage classmates.
        Is that acceptable, yes or no?
        Mr. Berkman. No.
        Mr. Lekas. I have no awareness of those facts. I can't
    speak to the question.
        Mrs. Cammack. Interesting.
        Yes or no?
        Ms. Ruane. I am not sure, but I think no, because----
        Mrs. Cammack. God, I would hope no.
        Mr. Thayer?
        Ms. Ruane. The question is whether they should profit off
    of nudify apps?
        Mrs. Cammack. Should they profit--should Apple and Google
    be profiting off of----
        Ms. Ruane. No. No, no one should profit off of nudify apps.
        Mrs. Cammack. I appreciate the clarity in your answer.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Thayer?
        Mr. Thayer. Again, hell no.
        Mrs. Cammack. No. I appreciate that.
        Now, I think we are all aware that there have been
    investigations into nudify apps being used by minors against
    fellow minors and also adults using these apps to nudify
    minors. This has been covered extensively through the BBC, FOX
    News, CNN, CNBC, and others.
        So, Mr. Thayer, Apple and Google have said that they are
    keeping kids safe online, but based on that track record that
    is well documented, do you think that Apple and Google are
    doing everything that they should to keep kids safe in the app
    store?
        Mr. Thayer. Not even the bare minimum.
        Mrs. Cammack. Perfect. Now as mentioned before, we have a
    bipartisan bill with many cosponsors on this committee that
    would stop Apple and Google from maintaining their app store
    monopoly, because that is, in fact, what they have. Often when
    we talk about monopolies, we focus on price gouging, but there
    are other good reasons why you would want to stop a monopoly
    from abusing their power, like speeding up innovation,
    improving quality, protecting kids, for example.
        So, Mr. Thayer, you recently signed a letter in support of
    our bill, the App Store Freedom Act. Thank you for that.
        It is not easy taking on the tech giants, is it?
        Mr. Thayer. As someone who has taken them on in every
    State, no.
        Mrs. Cammack. You can just keep your microphone on too.
        Mr. Thayer. OK.
        Mrs. Cammack. Now, could you----
        Mr. Thayer. Just point of clarification, I think we led
    that letter, so----
        Mrs. Cammack. Yes, you did. Thank you. Thank you for your
    leadership in that.
        Could you help the committee here understand how more
    competition keeps kids safe?
        Mr. Thayer. Well, it is pretty intuitive. So, I mean, more
    competition means more tools. More tools means more access for
    parents to use. So at the end of the day, competition is
    another area where we can actually increase parental controls
    and also incre--make privacy actually a thing that you have to
    fight for in the market.
        Right now, as you note, there is no free market in the app
    store market. There is no app--there is no--and there actually
    is no competition in the search market either. But I would like
    to quote one thing from an antitrust case that involved Apple
    at the Supreme Court.
        Mrs. Cammack. OK. Go fast.
        Mr. Thayer. This is Justice Kavanaugh: There is no
    intermediary in the distribution chain between Apple and the
    consumer. And they need to be held accountable.
        Mrs. Cammack. Mr. Thayer, I appreciate that. And I just
    want to end on this: Do you think that any monopoly,
    particularly those like Apple and Google, are in the best
    position to protect kids and their data?
        Mr. Fulcher. Make that a yes or a no. Time has expired.
        Mr. Thayer. Yes. But without--we need legislation to make
    sure they actually do what they say they are going to do, but
    the answer is kind of----
        Mrs. Cammack. A bit of the fox guarding the hen house?
        Mr. Thayer. Little bit.
        Mrs. Cammack. OK.
        Mr. Thayer. More than a little bit.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you. Time has expired.
        Mrs. Cammack. I appreciate that. I yield.
        Mr. Fulcher. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
    Massachusetts, Mrs. Trahan, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Trahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Well, I don't think I need to belabor the points that my
    colleagues have correctly made about this hearing's policy and
    procedural failures. The flagship proposals for today's
    hearing, KOSA and COPPA 2.0, have been gutted and co-opted by
    Big Tech. And in their process of backroom dealmaking,
    committee leadership has shunned parents, advocates, and
    bipartisanship. I sincerely hope we can move past this to get
    meaningful, balanced kids safety legislation across the finish
    line, and I am here, as I always have been, to work with my
    colleagues on both sides of the aisle to achieve that.
        To that end, I do want to call attention to an area that is
    missing from this hearing's slate of kids safety measures: app
    store competition. App stores are the distributors of the
    software kids rely on to run their digital lives. Apple and
    Google control access to nearly all American smartphones, and
    Federal courts have already found that they hold monopoly power
    over those markets. They wield that dominance to block third-
    party app stores while profiting from their own inadequate
    child safety practices.
        As a coalition of child safety organizations recently noted
    in a letter to the committee, quote, ``without meaningful
    competition, these firms have continually failed to protect
    children from sexual exploitation, exposure to obscenity, abuse
    of their data, and more,'' end quote. In the case of Apple, one
    of its engineers even said in private messages that it is,
    quote, ``the greatest platform for distributing child porn''
    and called child predator grooming a, quote, ``underresourced
    challenge.''
        Mr. Thayer, in your testimony, you call out some of the
    specious arguments offered by Big Tech against practical
    solutions to improve kids' safety. What is your response to
    Apple and Google's suggestions that the App Store Freedom Act
    and other measures will hurt kids' privacy and security, and
    are these companies' financial incentives actually aligned with
    the needs of our children?
        Mr. Thayer. So in my testimony--I will State it again--it
    is all a farce. It is always the case where they play this game
    of if you want to regulate competition, it is a privacy issue;
    if you want to regulate privacy, it is a competition issue. So,
    frankly, it is the same story being told over and over again.
    And as I said in my testimony, Big Tech's lobby is unrelenting
    and unwavering on these points, and, frankly, it has to stop.
    And the fact that they have been gaslighting us for the past
    couple decades is a bit absurd, and I think it is now time to
    act on bills like how you--bills that you propose and many of
    the bills that we are seeing today.
        Mrs. Trahan. Thank you. It is, I agree, exhausting.
        What we need is competition in parents' and kids'
    interests. As my colleague from Florida posed earlier, imagine
    for a moment a kids-first app store, one built from the ground
    up to protect children, replete with a curated set of apps,
    tailored review practices run by experts in child safety, and
    feature rich parent controls. In this app store, safety ratings
    are vetted by experts, not self-reported. Bad actors are
    promptly booted and not allowed to return. Such an experience
    is technically feasible but made virtually impossible by Apple
    and Google's policies.
        Mr. Thayer, do you agree that the App Store Freedom Act, a
    bipartisan bill that I am coleading with Representative Cammack
    and Soto and others, would empower parents with meaningful
    choice over what software is on their kids' devices?
        Mr. Thayer. I think it is a huge step in the right
    direction, and it would absolutely go a long way in helping
    parents. More competition means more tools.
        Mrs. Trahan. Thank you.
        In closing, I urge this committee to internalize two
    important points: Apple and Google cannot be trusted to protect
    our kids, and parents deserve better. It is vital that Congress
    ensures that the open market can foster competition that,
    unlike Big Tech, actually takes kids' safety seriously. Thank
    you. I yield back.
        Mr. Fulcher. The gentlelady yields.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
    Obernolte, please.
        Mr. Obernolte. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
    I would like to thank the committee for holding this hearing.
        This is a critically important topic, and, frankly,
    Congress is far behind in enshrining some of these protections
    into Federal law. So we have been trying for years to get this
    across the finish line. I am hoping that this is the year that
    some of these bills will make it through a markup and get past
    the House.
        As most of the people on the committee know, for many years
    I ran an app developer, and so when I read these bills, I kind
    of look at them through the lens of, if I was still developing,
    how difficult would these be for me to comply with and how
    would I go about complying with these requirements? And through
    that lens, unfortunately, the bills that we are considering
    today have a couple of pretty serious implementational
    problems.
        Let's start with age verification, which, you know, is key
    to the protections we are trying to provide here, because if we
    are going to say that an application can't do things if certain
    things--if a user is a minor, then we have to be able to figure
    out whether or not the user is a minor. That is really central
    to the protections we are trying to provide.
        The problem is--and a couple of the panelists brought it up
    in your testimony--when you force every single app developer to
    do that and the typical user might have 100 apps on their
    phone, you are collecting private information used to verify
    that age is 100 times and you are storing it 100 times, and
    that creates these repositories of private information that are
    really attractive targets for cybercriminals.
        So let me just suggest that it is much more efficient and
    much safer to do that just once at the operating system level.
    And that means that in the case of an iPhone, Apple would do
    it; in the case of an Android phone, Google would do it. They
    have a lot more information than developers do about the users
    of those platforms. And when you do it that way, you can
    enforce other protections.
        For example, if you have an application that is labeled
    ``for adults only,'' the operating system shouldn't even launch
    it if a minor is the current user of the system.
        A couple of the bills, you know, talk about this. When an
    application developer is allowed to rely on the age signal that
    is being generated by the operating system, and there has been
    kind of an assertion that there are conditions under which
    applications shouldn't be able to rely on that signal, and that
    is crazy, because the developer doesn't know as much as the
    operating system does.
        So let me just assert that, if your application is for
    adults only and the operating system is telling you that there
    is an adult using it, you should be able to rely on that.
        You know, another thing that I think is really important
    for us to have a discussion on is this concept of duty of care.
    And I think it is reasonable that we should impose a duty on
    the people that are developing and deploying these
    applications, but I also think that it is lazy legislating for
    us not to define what we mean when we say ``duty of care.''
        We had a good example in a hearing in this subcommittee--I
    believe it was last year--when we were talking about whether or
    not an application should have a duty to prevent online
    bullying by taking down a post if it was reported as bullying.
    And we all could agree, you know, that is reasonable. That is a
    reasonable requirement.
        But we are also obligated to say, you know, when we impose
    that requirement, well, what is the requirement? What is a
    reasonable amount of time? Is it 2 days? Is it a day? Is it an
    hour?
        You know, if we don't define what we mean when we say
    ``duty of care,'' then we are allowing some court in the future
    to be arguing about what we meant when we crafted the
    legislation. And let me just assert that, you know, it is our
    responsibility to not put our courts and our judicial system in
    that place and define what we mean up front.
        Enforcement. There has been a couple assertions by the
    panelists that a private right of action is a good thing. You
    know, let me just say we have to be really cautious about that.
    There are numerous examples in States across the country where
    that has gone awry. I will give you an example from my home
    State of California.
        We passed in the State legislature a few years ago
    something called the Private Attorney General Act that allowed
    private parties to enforce labor laws, and now if--anyone that
    has a district in California has horror stories about where
    abusive law firms go after not big businesses, because they can
    defend themselves, but small businesses. And I can point to
    multiple businesses in my district that have been driven out of
    business by frivolous lawsuits that anyone would agree is
    frivolous.
        And then one last--and I am not going to have time for
    questions, because I talk too much--but talking about
    preemption. You know, here is the deal. Like, we are trying to
    craft a compromise between being permissive and being
    protective. I mean, if we wanted to completely protect our
    kids, we would say kids can't go online, right. But, you know,
    we don't want to do that. We want to strike a balance.
        Once we have struck a balance, why would we allow different
    States to enact different balances? That creates a barrier to
    entry that favors large businesses over small businesses, and
    just think about how difficult it is to comply with potentially
    50 different State standards if you are two people in a garage
    somewhere trying to start a development company.
        So I am really happy we are having this conversation, and I
    think it is critically important we get this balance right, we
    get something across the finish line this year.
        I appreciate the discretion, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis [presiding], OK. The gentleman yields back.
        Now I will recognize Mr. Mullin for his 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Turning to the SAFE Bolts Act--pardon me, SAFE Bots Act. As
    with some of the other bills being discussed today, I am
    concerned that this bill would require sensitive age
    verification data from users for it to be effective--data that,
    as pointed out by my colleagues, in recent times has not been
    collected or safely stored by companies.
        So, Ms. Ruane, in your testimony you described the First
    Amendment and privacy concerns with the age verification tools.
    Can you briefly outline some of the tools or ways companies
    verify the ages of their users and some of the risks with those
    methods?
        Ms. Ruane. Yes, absolutely. Thank you for the question.
        Yes, age assurance techniques create privacy and security
    risks regardless of where they are deployed, and if we are
    going to require their usage, we need to require them under the
    safest, highest guardrails we can possibly implement, including
    ensuring data minimization and deletion of that data.
        We also need to ensure that there is equitable access to
    services that impose age verification to access them, because
    some age verification techniques are disproportionately
    ineffective when applied to people who have differing gender
    identities and people of--with differing skin colors than White
    people, basically.
        Mr. Mullin. Thank you for that. I believe the SAFE Bots Act
    discusses important issues. AI chatbots should not impersonate
    licensed professionals, but I think this is true under all
    circumstances, not just for minors, especially given the
    difficulties around verifying the age of users.
        So turning to a separate issue. In your testimony, Ms.
    Ruane, you outline this important role that States have
    historically played in protecting minors from harm. I believe
    this is an important point to acknowledge, particularly as
    lawmakers look to close gaps and loopholes that may have left
    some emerging technologies outside the reach of current law.
        So what are the risks of widespread preemption displacing
    longstanding State-level protections or preventing lawmakers at
    all levels of government from adapting current laws to novel
    circumstances of chatbots?
        Ms. Ruane. Absolutely. Thank you for the question.
        Red States and blue States alike are currently examining
    the impacts of emerging technologies on children and, frankly,
    on everyone. We don't fully understand how these technologies
    work, how they gather data, how they use data, and the bills at
    issue today do not focus enough on chatbots to ensure that
    there will be comprehensive protections going forward. States
    are light years ahead of the Federal Government on that issue
    right now, and we need to preserve their ability to act--not
    just with respect to kids, but with respect to everyone.
        Mr. Mullin. Thank you for that. So, lastly, turning to
    KOSA. There is certainly no question that we need to protect
    kids online, but we need to also balance concerns around young
    people's right to access legitimate information. Kids use the
    internet to find community as well as to access important
    resources that are essential to their health, safety, personal
    development, that may not be available or easily accessible in
    offline circumstances.
        As we consider proposals like KOSA, we need to ensure we
    are reducing real harms without creating new risks throughout
    intended censorship or eliminating access to critical
    resources.
        So again, Ms. Ruane, you noted in your testimony the
    current version of KOSA moves in the right direction by
    strengthening protections for kids online while preserving
    access to information. Could you elaborate on that just a
    little bit? Why do you think this better ensures we maintain
    that balance and avoid unintended restrictions on the resources
    kids and teens are currently relying on?
        Ms. Ruane. Absolutely. Thank you.
        So in the Senate version of KOSA, one of our concerns is
    that it gives too much authority to platforms and requires them
    essentially to guess what types of content will harm children,
    and the guessing process is going to be backed up by whatever
    the government in charge of it--in this case the current FTC--
    will determine harms children. So, for example, LGBTQ-related
    content or other controversial content, like climate change-
    related content or content related to armed conflicts going on
    in the world, could be censored under KOSA if platforms guess
    that it will harm children.
        The House version of KOSA narrows the duty of care,
    requiring platforms to essentially address what are already
    illegal categories of content, hopefully narrowing and limiting
    the amount of guessing they will have to do about what content
    to deliver to kids. And we think that that is moving in the
    right direction in terms of preserving all kids' ability to
    access information and speak online.
        Mr. Mullin. Thank you for that. I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Appreciate it. The gentleman yields back.
        Now recognize Mr. Bentz for his 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank the panel for
    sharing with us today your thoughts on this most important
    issue.
        Back in Oregon, where I am from, legislators have contacted
    me and asked what we are going to do in this space. Their
    primary concern is preemption.
        And so, Mr. Thayer, starting with you. One of the questions
    that has been asked is that several States--California, Utah,
    Arkansas, Texas, Florida--have passed and are implementing laws
    that require parental consent, a default time limit, secure
    curfews, or age verification for minors. If this bill preempts
    those laws but does not itself impose comparable restrictions,
    aren't you effectively asking Congress to shield business
    models from the very protection States have decided children
    need?
        Mr. Thayer. So on the issue of preemption, obviously, it is
    a sticky wicket and we take heavy thought in. I actually agree
    a lot with Ms. Ruane's--and I apologize if I am mispronouncing
    your name--statements when it comes--it relates to standard. I
    like a more complex type of preemption and to be a little bit
    clearer about what it is conflicting out.
        And so at Digital Progress Institute we are very interested
    in narrow preemptions. And so, again, happy to work with your
    office, and I am sure other folks as well would like to work
    with you as well to figure out exactly how to straddle that
    line.
        Mr. Bentz. Mr. Berkman, your thoughts.
        Mr. Berkman. On the App Store Accountability Act
    specifically?
        Mr. Bentz. No. On the thought of if we act here as we are
    going to, I hope, to protect children and we include in that
    packet of legislation a preemption of States getting involved,
    how do we explain to the States that we have gone to the very
    top level of protection when many would say, ``No, you
    haven't''?
        In other words, how does this preemption piece fit, and how
    do we justify it here in Congress by saying to States, like my
    Oregon, saying, ``Hey, we have it right, and you guys can just
    watch''?
        Mr. Berkman. Yes, so we make this analysis on a bill-by-
    bill basis, and our calculus is very clear: We are looking for
    a robust national framework that improves social media safety
    in the totality of the circumstances. And so we will move bill-
    by-bill in that analysis.
        Mr. Bentz. When I was thinking this through--and I haven't
    given it enough thought, I will admit that right off--it seemed
    to me that it was a commerce issue, right. You have 51
    different approaches--50, depending upon who you count as
    States and who aren't. The question is, why would we say we in
    Congress want to take this upon ourselves when we are basically
    establishing a ceiling as opposed to a floor? That is how the
    question has been put to me back by my legislature--
    legislators.
        Mr. Berkman. It really is--in our view, it is a bill-by-
    bill analysis. In some pieces of legislation, like Sammy's Law,
    preemption is noncontroversial, bipartisan, and makes a lot of
    sense. And so we are looking at, at the end of the day, where
    are we going to get the most protection for children and what
    is the analysis per bill?
        Mr. Bentz. So your thought would be, look at each bill,
    measure each bill, and go from there, and then somehow you can
    go back to the States and say, ``Well, we may not have taken
    care of it here, but we have over there.''
        That takes us nicely to the remarks made by my colleague,
    Mr. Obernolte, where he was talking about the difference
    between a general duty as opposed to specific things that you
    can't do. Share with me why one is better than the other, the
    broad, general duties undefined, although we hope we could, as
    opposed to calling out specific practices that are not allowed.
        Mr. Berkman. In terms of a duty of care?
        Mr. Bentz. Yes, but tell me which one is better for the
    protection of the child.
        Mr. Berkman. I mean, our focus today is on the legislation
    in front of us, and we are desperately trying to seek consensus
    on legislation that moves social media safety forward. And so
    right now we're not looking at a broad level duty of care in
    the hearing today.
        Mr. Bentz. Well, ignoring that attempt to not answer my
    question, which one do you think is better, or is it a
    combination of the two? Because as a lawyer I understand how
    great it is to have a specific, clear standard that you then
    have to prove as opposed to a broad, general thing that you
    are, you know, shooting at as you are bringing witnesses in.
    Which one do you think is better?
        Mr. Berkman. I mean, it is really hard to answer in the
    hypothetical. We support language, specific language, that is
    going to give the most robust workable protection for children
    at the end of the day. We want language that can pass Congress.
    We want language that is going to stand, be implemented, and
    enforced.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you. Thank all of you for being here.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. The gentleman yields back.
        Now recognize my friend from the great State of Michigan,
    Mrs. Dingell, for her 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and--for holding
    this important hearing, and to all of the witnesses for
    testifying today. But I hope, Mr. Chairman, this is our last
    hearing and we move to action, because we need to be moving
    legislation.
        I want to remind us why we are here today. In this room
    there are parents who lost their children because Big Tech
    failed to protect them. This picture sits on my desk. Sam and
    Laura Chapman are here for their son. Sammy was just 16 years
    old when a drug dealer contacted him through a private Snapchat
    message and delivered fentanyl-laced pills to his home. On
    February 7, 2021, he was found dead in his bedroom. And that is
    why, along with Representative Evans, we have introduced the No
    Fentanyl on Social Media Act.
        Joann Bogard is here for her son. Mason was a 15-year-old
    who filmed himself attempting the choking challenge that he had
    seen on YouTube. That day, on May 1, 2019, his father found him
    unconscious. He died 3 days later. This coin sits on my desk
    too.
        Maureen Molak is here for her 16-year-old son, David, who
    died by suicide on January 4, 2016, after enduring relentless
    cyberbullying, harassment, humiliation, and threats by his
    peers via text message and on social media.
        Rose Bronstein is here for her son Nate, a 15-year-old who
    died by suicide on January 13, 2022, following nonstop
    cyberbullying and online harassment by his classmates in which
    no one stepped in to stop.
        And Deb Schmill is here for her daughter, Becca, who was 18
    when she bought what she thought was cocaine from a dealer she
    found on Facebook. It was laced with fentanyl and it killed her
    on September 16, 2020, the night before she was supposed to
    enter rehab.
        These families are here today because they are fighting for
    what is right: to hold Big Tech accountable and protect every
    child online. And I know there are other parents here. I want
    to hear your stories. But Sammy, Mason, David, Nate, and Becca
    are just five of the countless young people whose lives have
    been stolen because Big Tech won't act, and it is time for us
    to act. We owe these families real bipartisan action.
        So I am going to move to my bill quickly. I want to discuss
    the legislation that I have introduced with Congressman Evans.
    This bill directs Federal agencies to examine how traffickers
    use social media to reach minors; how platform design enables
    access to fentanyl, which I hope angers the President of the
    United States on down to all of us; and what solutions could
    help keep deadly drugs out of kids' hands.
        Mr. Berkman, how can this research under our bill help
    identify platform design features that enable fentanyl access
    and trafficking that targets minors?
        Mr. Berkman. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question and
    for your legislation, which we do support.
        There are a number of families here today. You mentioned
    some. You don't have time for all of them. There are a number
    of families here that lost children due to fentanyl trafficking
    and drug trafficking over social media.
        This is a vital issue. We see it impacting children across
    the country. And so your legislation is incredibly important,
    because we need to understand with more specificity the
    features of platforms that are enabling trafficking, and it is
    happening. Someone mentioned drug trafficking happening in high
    schools. It was an example in person. It is happening on phones
    in high school via social media platforms.
        We have looked into this issue. We have been able to
    connect with a drug dealer that we obviously did not know
    before, and in minutes. That is how accessible this has
    become--drugs have become to children in the social media age.
    So your research is necessary so that we can have the
    interventions, both legislative and educational as well.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I am going to beg my colleagues on this
    committee, can we please work together to protect children and
    keep other children from dying? And with that, I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Absolutely, I am with you, that is for sure.
        OK. Next, I will recognize Representative Fry from the
    great State of South Carolina. You are recognized for your 5
    minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I actually really have enjoyed hearing the discussion here
    today on the bills. I think, in preparation, my staff made this
    giant binder of homework that I had to go through, but I really
    wanted to kind of hear the discussion evolve. Because what I
    see on this issue generally is that you have two sides that are
    talking at each other or past each other, but not necessarily
    with each other. And I think it is really important we have got
    parents in the room. Typically, in an Energy and Commerce
    hearing, you don't see this level of engagement or people that
    are--that have a tremendous interest in watching what happens
    in these hearings, but I think it is important that we get this
    right. It is incredibly important.
        I have got an 8-year-old, and thankfully he is not on
    social media, and I don't anticipate anytime in the near future
    where he would be on social media, but kids are, and it is
    important that Congress gets this right.
        In the audience we have Brandon Guffey from the State of
    South Carolina. He is a State legislator from the Rock Hill
    area. Not my district. I represent the beach, which is a much
    better place, Brandon. But Brandon has made it his life's
    mission to go after sextortion. His son committed suicide as a
    result of a sextortion plot by a Nigerian man with 30 letters
    in his first name--I cannot pronounce it--messaging people on
    social media apps.
        And so the concern is absolutely there. As a parent myself,
    certainly he has done incredible work in the State of South
    Carolina, but beyond that we have to get this right.
        Again, I have a simple bill in this, the Kids Internet
    Safety Partnership Act, which I think encourages that dialogue,
    right, that it takes stakeholders--parental groups, social
    media companies, tech industries big, small, medium--putting
    together best practices, not only for the companies but for the
    parents too, on what to do and how to act and how to protect
    your children in this very connected environment.
        So I am super happy with that. I am happy that it is
    bipartisan. No one has talked any bad things about it today, so
    I think we are doing something right, I think, I hope.
        Paul, I want to ask you something, though. Your association
    published a child and teen privacy and safety principles,
    talking about data minimization, parental tools, transparency,
    and risk assessments. How well do you think that the
    partnership model like KISPA can do, the bill that I have,
    operationalize those principles, part one, and two, will your
    member companies commit to fully participating if Congress were
    to pass this and it were to be signed by the President?
        Mr. Lekas. Thank you for your question, and we appreciate
    your legislation as well. I think it is a really smart
    approach, and bringing more people together in a room to come
    up with solutions is always valuable and especially here. Not
    every solution is going to be legislative. There are things
    that Congress can and should do.
        So I think that, you know, this is an area where a lot can
    be done on a voluntary basis, but it also needs some teeth from
    Congress. And we are supportive of turning data minimization
    for youth into law, prohibiting targeted advertising of youth.
    We think these are really important, meaningful steps that can
    be taken. And the challenge is we may be able to bring together
    a number of companies that believe in upping their game and
    being more responsible and recognize the real concerns out
    there, but we don't know that that is going to be the case
    across the board. And very likely there will be some of that.
        Mr. Fry. Thank you for that. Real quick, I want to jump
    into the hot topic of the day, which is preemption. You like
    the House version preemption component as opposed to the
    Senate-passed version. Is that fair to say?
        Mr. Lekas. With respect to--well, we believe in preemption.
    We think that preemption is an important concept to start with
    because, right now--
        Mr. Fry. I understand that, and I have got 46 seconds, so
    let me nail this down. You like the House version of the
    preemption better than the Senate version.
        Mr. Lekas. We are still reviewing that with our members,
    the specific language, but we believe there needs to be a
    strong national standard for everybody.
        Mr. Fry. Mr. Thayer, you do not like the preemption of the
    House version. Is that correct? Not as much as maybe the Senate
    version.
        Mr. Thayer. I prefer the conflict preemption over as it
    relates.
        Mr. Fry. The Senate version.
        Mr. Thayer. I believe the Senate version has something
    similar to what the House version has, but it should--it is
    unclear right now as to whether or not this is a conflict
    preemption standard or--but as it relates typically is a
    broader standard, and at DPI we typically like incremental
    approaches to different policies. So the closer we can get to a
    conflict preemption standard, I think, the better off we are.
        Mr. Fry. Ma'am, and you like the conflict preemption
    standard over the broad preemption standard. Is that correct?
    Ma'am?
        Ms. Ruane. Pardon me. Yes, yes, we prefer conflict
    preemption--
        Mr. Fry. And unfortunately, Chairman, I am out of time,
    because I actually really wanted to dive into, like, a legal
    argument about the--or legal discussion about this to kind of
    figure out where the components are that really drive the
    differences and are there ways to rectify that, right. I mean,
    you hear the arguments on the other side on why maybe a broad,
    sweeping preemption would be beneficial, but then there are
    compelling arguments too on the other side of allowing States
    the flexibility to do their thing too.
        So unfortunately, Chairman, I am out of time, so I yield
    back, but I still want to have that discussion with you all.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Absolutely. The gentleman yields back.
        Now recognize Representative Kelly for her 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the
    witnesses.
        In Illinois and across the country, children and teens are
    becoming increasingly subject to the risk of AI chatbots,
    social media, and other online services. So without thorough,
    comprehensive privacy laws for all Americans, I worry we aren't
    meeting the moment to ensure the health and safety of our
    children, particularly concerning the mental health of children
    and teens. The bills we are discussing today present some
    opportunity for progress but also give me some concerns.
        Ms. Ruane, rates of depression and suicidal ideation among
    teens are alarming. In Illinois, there was a law passed just
    this year to prohibit the use of AI for direct therapeutic
    purposes, such as generating treatment plans. Can you describe
    how overbroad Federal preemption could overrule this and other
    important State laws?
        Ms. Ruane. Absolutely. Thank you, Representative Kelly.
        Red and blue States alike are currently examining kids'
    interactions with chatbots and online services and emerging
    technologies, and they are working to design ways to address
    concerns related to kids' privacy and their use of these
    services, like Illinois--like Illinois law. Preemption--relief
    to preemption, in particular--would put an end to that
    necessary thought-and-design process that is currently
    happening at the State level. Ossifying incomplete Federal
    standards and eliminating the possibility for States to step up
    and fill in gaps would be a mistake.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you. Children might feel inclined to
    disclose sensitive data about their emotions, issues at school,
    mental health struggles to an AI chatbot. Alternatively, they
    may look to these tools to receive guidance on addressing their
    struggles in lieu of a friend, family member, or trusted adult.
    We have seen this lead to devastating situations, as Adam Raine
    who ended his life after seeking emotional support from
    ChatGPT.
        With that in mind, how can we treat--prevent chatbots from
    attempting to diagnose, manage, or treat children?
        Ms. Ruane. Absolutely. So we think that chatbots should not
    be allowed to present themselves as mental health professionals
    when they are not, when they are not licensed to do so.
        Another aspect of this that is worth thinking about is that
    this is another good example of why broad preemption would be
    concerning in this circumstance. Chatbots, basically all
    generative AI services, are data vacuums. They are collecting
    and compiling information from first parties, from third
    parties, from data brokers, all over the internet, and they are
    still in need of more and ever more data to train their
    services.
        If we preempt States' ability to deal with that issue,
    along with the issue of the--with the issue of the prompts that
    children are giving to services that are, as you noted, very
    private and related to extremely sensitive information, we will
    be failing children if we leave that gap in Federal law and at
    the State level as well.
        Ms. Kelly. You answered my other question. Like, how do we
    protect--but I did want to ask everyone really quick--this is a
    question that was posed to me that I am just going to ask.
        Some wanted to know, why don't we just codify massive
    statutory damages that make it so painful to be caught that
    then companies would pay attention? Do you think that would
    work?
        And just go down the line.
        Mr. Berkman. Yes.
        Ms. Kelly. Oh, you do. Oh, that was short and sweet.
        Mr. Lekas. I think there needs to be a showing of harm.
        Ms. Kelly. A showing of harm.
        Mr. Lekas. Actual harm. Yes.
        Ms. Ruane. We absolutely agree that damages need to be
    meaningful.
        For example, earlier this year, the FTC issued a fine
    against Disney for $10 million for COPPA violations. Disney is
    a $200 billion company. Ten million dollars is a rounding
    error.
        We need any damages that come as a result of violations of
    these privacy laws to be meaningful so that it incentivizes
    compliance.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
        Mr. Thayer. Yes, with strong injunctions.
        Ms. Kelly. All right. Thank you so much.
        Thank you to the witnesses.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Fulcher [presiding]. Thank you.
        The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Lee,
    for 5 minutes, please.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and our witnesses.
        I also want to thank Chairman Bilirakis and Chairman
    Guthrie for including two of my bills--the Promoting a Safer
    Internet for Minors Act, which is co-led by my friend from the
    great State of Florida, Mr. Soto, and the Children and Teens'
    Online Privacy Protection Act, also known as COPPA 2.0, which I
    am proud to colead with Mr. Walberg of Michigan--in today's
    hearing.
        I have dedicated much of my career to protecting the most
    vulnerable in our society, including children and teens online,
    and I am committed to working with this committee to continue
    that work. I very much appreciate the discussion today about
    advancing policies that protect children and also empower
    parents as they navigate the digital landscape, while also
    safeguarding our First Amendment rights.
        Mr. Berkman, specifically, thank you for your work in
    empowering children and families with the tools they need to
    navigate social media safely and securely.
        Digital technologies change so fast that even the most
    engaged parents struggle to keep up with the latest apps and
    features. That is why the Promoting a Safe Internet for Minors
    Act would direct the FTC to launch a nationwide education
    campaign to help kids and parents learn how to stay safe.
        Would you share with us why a national education campaign,
    similar to what the Federal Government has done for seatbelts
    and cigarettes, is important and what type of information or
    tools you believe would be the most important to include?
        Mr. Berkman. Yes. Thank you so much for the question and
    for your cosponsorship of that legislation. We support it. We
    are across the country, as you mentioned, educating students,
    parents, and administrators at schools on how to keep children
    safer on social media because of that harm.
        And so I will say first, on the advocacy part of your
    campaign, it is absolutely critical--I have mentioned this
    before in the hearing. There is an alarming disconnect in the
    awareness of how severe and pervasive the harms are. People are
    concerned and frightened, but they just don't understand how
    truly bad this is.
        And so your legislation and that campaign is very sorely
    needed to bring awareness, and that helps us and other NGOs do
    our job.
        In terms of specific education, we need help certainly on
    the ground. We can't cover every single child in every single
    school, though that is our goal.
        In terms of talking about best practices, there is a lot of
    talk out there. It seems accessible, when we talk about social
    media safety. There is a lot of talk out there about social
    media safety, and the curriculum is not necessarily evidence-
    based. And that leads to time wasting at best and, at worst,
    counter-results or detrimental results to the child.
        And so we thank you for your legislation. I think it is
    going to do a lot of good, and I hope it passes.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you.
        Mr. Lekas, thank you for your work, as well, in protecting
    the safety of minors online and your perspective on modernizing
    COPPA for the 21st century. When it was originally enacted, of
    course, it was well before today's landscape of digital devices
    and online platforms.
        One of the principles that you have discussed is the
    approach to child and teen privacy and restricting advertising
    to minors. COPPA 2.0 would prohibit targeted advertising to
    children and teens.
        But would you explain for us how targeted advertising
    differs from contextual advertising, and the risk that targeted
    advertising poses to young people?
        Mr. Lekas. Absolutely. Thank you very much for that
    question.
        So targeted advertising involves delivering advertisements
    that are specific to an individual based on their online
    behavior and the information that may be collected about them.
    So think of, perhaps, creating a profile or a dossier on an
    individual--a machine would do this--and then deliver
    advertisements that seem suitable, according to the automated
    system, to that individual.
        Ranking Member Pallone raised some concerns earlier today
    about the way in which data can be used--minors' data can be
    used, and when they turn 18, there is this dossier on them. And
    that is what we are seeking to prevent.
        We think that contextual advertising, which is based on
    things like age-appropriate advertising, where your location
    is, is something that is appropriate because it doesn't require
    collecting individually specific information and creating a
    repository of very sensitive information.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis [presiding]. The gentlelady yields back.
        I now recognize Ms. Schrier, Dr. Schrier, for her
    questioning.
        Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you to all of our witnesses for this really important
    discussion today.
        I am very glad to see Sammy's Law included in this hearing.
    I have worked closely with Representatives Carter and Miller-
    Meeks and Wasserman Schultz to really carefully craft this
    bill.
        Over and over today and in past hearings, we have heard
    about all of the tremendous dangers that kids and teens are
    facing online and the real-world problems and dangers that
    social media can create or make much worse. And, as discussed,
    we are talking about anxiety and depression and eating
    disorders and bullying and sexual trafficking and abuse and
    exposure to or access to drugs and even suicidality. And it
    feels really almost impossible for parents to protect their
    kids online.
        This bill--we already saw a picture of Sammy--is named
    after Sammy Chapman, who, when he was just 16, bought a
    fentanyl-laced pill over Snapchat, and it killed him. One pill.
    And Sammy's dad, Sam, is in the room today.
        And I just want to thank you, Sam, for your advocacy and
    for stepping up to protect other kids from that same fate.
        Sammy's Law is simple. It would just make sure that parents
    can monitor their teens on social media. And we worked so hard
    to find the right balance so that parents are alerted by third-
    party watchdog apps but kids' privacy is also protected. And
    so, if certain topics rise up, then a parent gets a warning.
        But this only works if the social media companies will
    allow these watchdog apps to work with them.
        Mr. Berkman, thank you for being here today. I was
    wondering if you could just expand on why the existing settings
    and controls for minors on social media apps just aren't
    cutting it and why we need these watchdog apps.
        Mr. Berkman. Yes. First of all, thank you so much for your
    coleadership of this legislation, especially given your
    background as a pediatrician. And I say that as a son of a
    pediatrician, so I have reverence for that experience.
        Sammy's Law is an essential part of this puzzle in terms of
    protecting children. First of all, it protects against almost
    the full spectrum of harms that are impacting children. And you
    named a lot of them, not even all of them. There's a lot of
    them, to be clear.
        We have mentioned numerous times in this hearing that the
    social media platforms have an inherent conflict of interest
    between our children's safety and their profits. They move
    slowly.
        And a perfect example here is drug trafficking over social
    media. We started--this was not really a major harm when we
    started our work as the Organization for Social Media Safety.
    It really exploded on the scene around 2020, and we started
    seeing a lot of deceased children because of drugs that they
    purchased over social media.
        We saw safety software companies, which do exist today and
    are actively protecting children, immediately act to make sure
    that they were keeping up with the language used by dealers to
    communicate with children--the emojis, the acronyms. Meanwhile,
    it took the social media platforms years to even acknowledge
    the problem.
        And so that is point number one.
        Point number two, really quickly, I will make really
    quickly, is this technology, sending parents alerts,
    maintaining your child's privacy as well--alerts just on the
    harm--is incredible technology. We are able to alert parents to
    imminent risk. The social media platforms----
        Ms. Schrier. I am going to have to----
        Mr. Berkman [continuing]. Cannot do that.
        Ms. Schrier. Thank you.
        Mr. Berkman. Thank you.
        Ms. Schrier. I am going to cut you off there. Just--I want
    to make a couple more comments.
        We have heard about this today. I want to just talk about
    KOSA, the Kids Online Safety Act, which is a great bipartisan
    bill that passed, I believe unanimously or almost unanimously,
    in the Senate, has teeth, has a duty of care for social media
    companies that really holds them accountable. And yet the
    version this year that we are taking on of KOSA has been
    gutted. It is toothless. It does not give the enforcement
    mechanisms.
        And all of the people--I was a colead of the last one--who
    supported it last time are feeling so frustrated that, like,
    this is not the best we can do. And I just want to emphasize
    that the previous bill, the one with teeth, is the one we
    should be bringing up today to really protect kids online.
        Similarly, there is a discussion today about getting kids
    under 16 off social media. I just want to say that there is a
    Kids Off Social Media Act, KOSMA, that also has a bill,
    bipartisan, in the Senate, with a path that could be signed by
    the President. And we need to be taking that bill up if we are
    serious about doing something soon to protect our kids.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. The gentlelady yields back.
        I will recognize Representative Kean for his 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you to our distinguished witnesses for being here
    today.
        Protecting America's children is of the utmost importance.
    The internet and social media have brought many opportunities
    to the American people; however, they have also brought with
    them dangerous harms to American children. I look forward to
    hearing from our witnesses on how we can ensure that parents
    have the tools necessary to safely guide their children through
    their online activities.
        Mr. Berkman, video games are a part of daily activities for
    many families in New Jersey and across this Nation. While many
    view these games as merely toys, the truth is that many video
    games have become fully functioning social networks.
        For years, the gaming industry has defaulted to open
    communication, letting anyone talk to anyone. That is why I
    introduced the Safer GAMING Act. My bill requires that for
    minors the default setting must be the safest one, meaning
    voice and text chat with strangers is turned off until a parent
    turns it on.
        Can you discuss how minors are using social gaming
    platforms and the risks to minors using these platforms?
        Mr. Berkman. Thank you very much for the question,
    Congressman.
        We believe that these types of gaming platforms that you
    call ``social gaming,'' they are social media. They are a space
    where children and adults can go on, meet other people on the
    platform, and exchange content in the gaming situation,
    context--video and text mainly.
        And so, because of that, we see the same risks,
    essentially, that we see on other types of social media
    platforms: severe cyberbullying, sextortion, sexual predation,
    abduction as well. So there is a full range of very serious
    risks here.
        Mr. Kean. So, as a followup to that, we know that predators
    often use the shared interest of a video game to build trust
    with a child. The statistics show that about two-thirds of
    minors say that an online-only contact has asked them to move
    from a public chat into a private conversation on another
    platform.
        How would the default safeguards in my bill, which limit
    communication with strangers automatically, disrupt that cycle
    before it even starts?
        Mr. Berkman. Well, the short answer is, it is as effective
    as you can get with a legislative change to mitigate this
    threat. If we are removing the ability for adults to contact
    minors over gaming platforms, that is almost entirely effective
    in terms of mitigation.
        And let's be clear: When children go on these gaming sites,
    they are spending anywhere from 20 minutes to many hours, to
    many hours a day, over months, with adults that they do not
    know in real life. That is a lot of time for adults with
    malintent to spend with a child and conduct that grooming
    process.
        We saw in April, I should note, in April, a 10-year-old
    abducted after using the gaming platform Roblox. This is an
    active, serious threat.
        Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Berkman.
        Mr. Thayer, the data is alarming. Nearly 70 percent of
    teens report they are playing online games with strangers at
    least weekly, and three-quarters of players have experienced
    harassment in these games.
        My bill takes an important step to address that. The Safer
    GAMING Act says if a user is under 18 they should not be
    participating in chats, particularly with adults, unless a
    parent explicitly allows for it.
        Mr. Thayer, what harms can arise when every teenager
    playing an online video game automatically has an open
    communication line to a random adult stranger?
        Mr. Thayer. Well, Congressman, the short answer is too
    much.
        And I think you have seen that even outside of your typical
    game that you see on Xbox or PlayStation. You see it even on
    mobile apps. I mean, this has been a longstanding problem with
    mobile apps in particular.
        Pokemon GO, for instance, was a hot-button game, and it
    actually indirectly--or, actually, directly led kids to the
    predators' hands. Because the whole point of the game was to go
    into public areas and go find Pokemon, which--guess who picked
    up kids like that and also tracked kids with, you know,
    Pokemon?
        So, again, this is a longstanding issue. It has been
    something that has been strategically, maybe even
    categorically, ignored by the tech companies, and maybe it is
    time for a lot of congressional oversight and legal oversight.
        Mr. Kean. All right.
        And I thank our entire panel for being here today and for
    your insights.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. The gentleman yields back.
        Now I will recognize Representative Clarke from the great
    State of New York for your 5 minutes of questioning.
        Ms. Clarke. Good afternoon, and thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman. I thank our Ranking Member Schakowsky for holding
    this hearing.
        And thank you to our witnesses for joining us today.
        Earlier this year, in March, the subcommittee held a
    hearing titled ``Examining Online Harms'' with the expectation
    to discuss how Congress can help protect children from online
    harms. That hearing was derailed when, in the days leading up,
    Donald Trump attempted to illegally fire the Democratic
    Commissioners of the FTC, the very agency tasked with
    protecting kids and adults online.
        The FTC has a long, bipartisan history of working to
    protect children online through their enforcement of the
    Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, the FTC Act, and
    their rulemaking authority. But since March, the FTC has been
    unable to do its job in good faith and maintain its historic
    role as a bipartisan, independent cop on the beat.
        As I said to this committee 9 months ago, I am curious how
    Mr. Trump and my Republican colleagues think the firing of
    Democratic Commissioners furthers the mission of the FTC to
    protect kids online and the public from deceptive or unfair
    business practices. If my colleagues, my Republican colleagues,
    are serious about protecting kids from online harm, we should
    all be able to agree today that Rebecca Slaughter should be
    reinstated to the FTC.
        But, unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the
    aisle are not serious about this topic. And that is why they
    continue to entertain the idea of a moratorium on State AI
    laws, even after it was defeated 99 to 1 in the Senate. In 2025
    alone, all 50 States introduced legislation on AI, while
    Republicans in Congress offered no Federal alternative other
    than preemption. It is no mistake that the only Republican
    proposal frees AI and Big Tech companies from all oversight.
        Without a comprehensive Federal standard, existing State
    laws are the only legislation keeping kids safe online right
    now. Without a comprehensive Federal online data privacy law,
    all of these attempts at protecting our children online will be
    in vain.
        Today's legislative package is missing the mark.
        The State laws include State bills like the AI companion
    law in New York that clearly and regularly notify users that
    they are not interacting with a human and detect signs of self-
    harm and can direct users to crisis resources.
        Any kind of broad preemption or moratorium on existing AI
    State legislation would kneecap the important work States like
    New York have already done to protect kids.
        Instead of talking in circles and restating the obvious,
    today I encourage my colleagues to finally act. Demand the
    reinstatement of Commissioner Slaughter. Demand the exclusion
    of an AI moratorium in must-pass legislation. Demand that
    Donald Trump stop giving handouts to Big Tech. And let Congress
    do our job to protect kids and adults online with comprehensive
    legislation.
        As I look out at the many families representing their loved
    ones here today, I find today's hearing extremely vexing. My
    staff has noted that this committee has had at least 5 hearings
    on the threats to kids online over the past 5 years. This is
    ridiculous.
        It is time for us to act, colleagues. Every moment that we
    sit here restating the obvious, children and our families are
    at risk.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. The gentlelady yields back.
        I now recognize Mrs. Houchin for her 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Mrs. Houchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the ranking
    member for holding this hearing today and for the bipartisan
    work reflected in today's hearing.
        I thank the witnesses for being here and for offering your
    testimony.
        The importance of this work is impossible to overstate,
    because behind every policy choice are families who are living
    with the consequences.
        I have been deeply moved by the parents, some of whom are
    here today, who despite losing a child continue to fight for
    stronger protections so no other family has to experience the
    same tragedy. Their experience brings an urgency and a clarity
    for policymakers, and we owe it to them to turn that into
    meaningful change.
        Every parent I talk to is doing everything they can to
    guide their kids and protect them online, on social media,
    through gaming platforms, and now AI. And they are simply
    overwhelmed and cannot keep up--policymakers can barely keep
    up--with the advance in technology.
        So this Congress we are recognizing how quickly the risks
    are evolving. I worked to launch the bipartisan Kids Online
    Safety Caucus so Members can stay current and engage with
    parents, researchers, schools, and industry.
        I am also proud that today's hearing includes bills that I
    have been working on--the AWARE Act, the SAFE Bots Act, and the
    RESET Act, as well as the Parents Over Platforms Act, which I
    am helping colead with Representative Auchincloss.
        Kids deserve the same safety mindset online that we have
    with car seats and playgrounds and other harms. The bills today
    reflect that approach.
        The AWARE Act gives parents and educators clear, accessible
    guidance on how chatbots work, what red flags to look for, and
    where to go to for help.
        The SAFE Bots Act ensures no AI system can impersonate a
    licensed professional and requires age-appropriate disclosure
    so kids always know that they are talking to software, not a
    human being.
        The RESET Act asks whether 13 should still be the standard,
    the age of internet adulthood. Given that research shows the
    highest risks for social media harms fall below the age of 16,
    this bill creates a bright line and a national rule that
    platforms may not maintain accounts for users under 16. They
    must delete known under-16 accounts and their data and must
    follow a single standard enforced by the FTC and State's
    attorneys general.
        The legal and global trends point in the same direction.
    Protecting minors from high-risk digital environments is both
    necessary and clearly permissible and possible. Our job is to
    learn from these developments so we can set guardrails worthy
    of the moment, and I look forward to working with colleagues on
    both sides of the aisle to accomplish that.
        I do have a few questions with the remaining time that I
    have. I am going to go to Mr. Thayer.
        We have heard a lot of concerns raised about the First
    Amendment relative to some of these bills. The 11th Circuit
    decision on H.B. 3, the Florida legislation, emphasized that
    States can act decisively to protect minors from harmful
    digital environments even when platforms claim editorial
    rights.
        Does that signal, in your view, that Congress can likewise
    adopt RESET's type of bright-line Federal standard--under-16
    account prohibition and deletion--without triggering First
    Amendment concerns that Big Tech continues to raise?
        Mr. Thayer. Absolutely.
        So the 11th Circuit, as you rightly noted, did uphold a law
    that was somewhat similar to what you are describing. And just
    to reiterate what the ruling basically said, which was just a
    rehashing of what was said in the Supreme Court in TikTok v.
    Garland, it essentially said that--the court basically
    clarified that a law has to be based off of what it is
    attempting to regulate.
        If the regulation is attempting to regulate something that
    is a nonspeech-related thing, even if the ancillary aspects of
    that regulation does impact speech, it is likely going to be
    content-neutral, with some provisos.
        So I think that what the 11th Circuit did was clarify
    something that the Supreme Court has said. And I think it would
    be very wise to heed that guidance and move forward
    accordingly.
        Mrs. Houchin. Thank you.
        We have talked some today about preemption. I just want to
    note that we do seek a Federal standard so that States cannot
    go below--I certainly wouldn't want a State like California,
    who has a 13-year-old standard.
        So, if we are talking about preemption, I think we have to
    be cognizant that, if there are--we want the States to be
    nimble, but we also don't want them to go below a standard set
    federally that we have determined will protect kids. Otherwise,
    we might as well not do this work and just leave it up to the
    States.
        Protecting children in the digital age is one of our most
    important responsibilities that we have as elected leaders. It
    is clearly one of the most important moral responsibilities we
    have as parents. AI is not going away. Social media is not
    going away. It is our obligation to defend and protect the
    innocent and the next generation.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. I thank the lady for all her good work on
    this issue.
        I next will recognize Representative Evans for his 5
    minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and, of
    course, to all of our witnesses for coming.
        My first question will be to Mr. Berkman.
        Before I came to Congress, I spent over a decade as a cop
    in the Denver metro area, and I saw the fentanyl crisis grow in
    my State and across the country. In 2023, Colorado had the
    second-highest overdose rate in the Nation for teenagers, and
    75 percent of that was attributed to fentanyl. Earlier this
    year, we had the sixth-largest fentanyl seizure in U.S. history
    happen on the south side of the Denver metro area--6.8 million
    lethal doses of fentanyl in that seizure.
        And we know a lot of this stuff is trafficked to our kids
    through things like social media. So, to counter this threat,
    one of the bills that I am carrying is the No Fentanyl on
    Social Media Act, which seeks to address this problem by
    assessing the full scope of how social media is used to be able
    to traffic fentanyl to our kids.
        Can you discuss the role of social media in trafficking
    drugs and how this piece of legislation can help to resolve
    that issue?
        Mr. Berkman. Yes. Thank you for your legislation. We
    enthusiastically support it, and we need it.
        Children are acquiring drugs over social media. The
    accessibility is astonishing. This is not the situation that we
    had presocial media in terms of accessibility. They are able to
    get on, quickly connect with a drug dealer, sometimes one that
    they don't know. There is solicitation happening with
    regularity to teens. They are able to conduct a drug
    transaction and then have drugs delivered to their door like a
    pizza. This is the tragic story of what happened to 16-year-old
    Sammy Chapman as well.
        I will note, this is also happening cross-platform, which
    is a safety concern, where drug dealers can advertise on one
    platform, conduct a conversation and transaction on another,
    and then receive payment on yet another. That is a very severe
    problem.
        So we need your bill to understand the full facet of how
    this is happening, the features that are enabling it to happen,
    as well, and go undetected.
        Mr. Evans. Online games with a chat feature--I mean, again,
    I saw it during the course of my career.
        This is for a situation--what we just discussed--the
    situations where somebody is potentially looking to go buy
    drugs, that is their intent. Can you talk a little bit about
    storefront apps, where maybe somebody is not actually looking
    to go buy drugs, they just bought a painkiller that they
    thought was legitimate, but it ends up being counterfeit and so
    then, when they consume what they thought was a legitimate
    product, they end up dying of an overdose because it was an
    illicit or a fraudulent pill?
        So can you just talk about how policy solutions like what
    we are discussing today can be used to fix some of the
    storefront nature of these apps, where people are buying
    something they think is legit but ends up being fraudulent?
        Mr. Berkman. With the focus of this hearing on children, I
    will focus on children there. We see this happening with
    children. And, again, Sammy Chapman thought that he was buying
    Xanax over social media. I wish I could name all the parents
    and children here and honor them. That is the case with a lot
    of the parents here as well.
        And so legislation like Sammy's Law would help protect
    against a child that is otherwise bored trying to go out and
    get something like Adderall, Xanax, Vicodin, which we are now
    seeing being poisoned with fentanyl and being lethal. And that
    education and awareness needs to spread as well. But Sammy's
    Law is a very strong deterrent to that behavior.
        Mr. Evans. Thank you.
        And then a final question here. In your comments, you
    talked about some of the other harms that come from kids on
    social media. We have talked a lot about drugs. As a cop, I
    unfortunately had many situations where I interacted with kids
    being human trafficked over the internet and over social media.
        And for me as a cop, probably the most shocking statistic,
    once I really got into this space, was understanding that a lot
    of times this trafficking happens within a half a mile of these
    kids' home. It is done through peer pressure over social media.
    And then the exploitation, whether it is digital, whether it is
    sexting, whether it is an actual in-person encounter--I mean,
    it can happen in their own home. I had one girl, 14 years old,
    that was repeatedly trafficked in her own basement through
    social media and online peer pressure.
        So can you just talk about things that this committee can
    do legislatively to be able to put guardrails around situations
    like that? Twenty seconds.
        Mr. Berkman. Yes. trafficking, sextortion--our children are
    no longer safe in their homes. That includes cyberbullying as
    well, which does not end at the end of the school day.
        And so there are a range of solutions on here. I have 5
    seconds. Let me highlight Sammy's Law once again. All the
    dangers that you mentioned, a parent would get an alert as that
    risk is imminent and occurring so that they could provide
    immediate, lifesaving support.
        Mr. Evans. Loop in the parent. Sounds good.
        I yield back, Chairman.
        Mr. Bilirakis. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize Mr. James from the great State of Michigan
    for his 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, first, I want to
    express my sincere gratitude to you and Chairman Guthrie for
    your leadership in organizing this amazing hearing.
        I also appreciate all our distinguished panelists for being
    here today. I look forward to hearing from your insight, and I
    have been enjoying your feedback thus far.
        I have said for years Facebook is the Philip Morris of our
    time. Yet they are just one example of the cesspool that is the
    modern internet. Americans are waking up to Big Tech's game.
    They provide lip service on how they are protecting children
    while actually delivering none of those protections.
        Social media has been labeled the primary culprit, and for
    good reason. Countless studies and multiple congressional
    hearings make clear that social media is not only an addictive
    service for children but is also harmful for their mental
    acuity and overall mental health.
        The damage social media is doing to our kids is
    unconscionable and extremely disturbing. Big Tech is knowingly
    and willingly wreaking havoc on our kids' mental health. As a
    father of three school-age boys, the warning signs of social
    media's impact on kids are abundantly clear to me and to all
    parents.
        My bill, H.R. 3149, the App Store Accountability Act,
    ensures that children are not accessing age-restricted material
    through online app stores and gives parents real control over
    what their kids can download.
        In fact, a national poll commissioned by Digital Childhood
    Alliance found that 88 percent of parents want app stores to
    require parental approval before minors can download a new app.
    Eighty-eight percent. Can you imagine any other issue that 88
    percent of Americans agree on? We have printed 83 letters just
    today from parents and groups who agree.
        Just as brick-and-mortar stores are held responsible for
    selling age-restricted materials like tobacco or alcohol to
    minors, the App Store Accountability Act will hold digital app
    stores accountable for providing adult or addictive material to
    minors as well.
        Kids cannot consent. I say again: Kids cannot consent. And
    any company that exposes them to adult or addictive material
    should and will be held accountable.
        The App Store Accountability Act holds Big Tech companies
    to the same standard as local corner stores. It protects the
    next generation by empowering parents now and making clear
    that, when it comes to safeguarding our children, no one gets a
    free pass.
        My time is limited, so I will get right to it.
        Mr. Thayer, as excited as I am to lead this App Store
    Accountability Act, I do want to share, the logic is very
    simple: App stores are a gateway to the internet, for social
    media, for our children.
        You have played a very critical role in shaping similar
    legislation at the State level. Can you state one more time why
    placing the burden to verify a user's age on the app store,
    rather than on individual websites or apps, is the most
    efficient and privacy-protective way to ensure online safety
    for kids?
        Mr. Thayer. Well, thank you, Congressman, for all of your
    work on this. You have been a real champion, and it has been an
    honor and privilege working with you and your staff.
        Actually, I think who said it better was Congressman
    Obernolte themselves. They have the data already. They already
    have all of the access to this information. And not only that,
    they already are developing the tools currently.
        So, in the States, we got, I think, three States to
    subscribe to the App Store Accountability Act and pass it.
    Texas is among them. And, as a result, it actually forced Apple
    to create the API that would be necessary in order to
    accomplish all of this.
        As you say, this is a very simple idea: Leverage the
    existing infrastructure to do an amount of good. And at the end
    of the day, they are the ones calling themselves a store, not
    us. So if they want to be a store, we should hold them to the
    same accountability as any other store in any other market.
        It is absurd that merely because you put electrons into a
    store it is somehow magically new. No. They know what they are
    selling, they know what is on their product, and, most
    importantly, they know the age of their user better than any
    other company in the world.
        Mr. James. That is exactly right.
        And maybe you could help me to respond to some of--I won't
    say the ``critics,'' but those who may not know the intent or
    the details of what we are trying to do here. Can you help
    explain a little bit differently privacy concerns that some may
    rise?
        Mr. Thayer. So I actually don't have to, because Apple
    itself has said that they can actually do all of this in a
    privacy-conscious way.
        So, to be clear, all the Act is really requiring Apple and
    Google to do is to share an API that is encrypted. And they do
    this on multiple different layers, not just on--not just to
    verify age, but actually they have done it--every time you do a
    financial transaction, that is an API. That is an API that is
    connecting with some other app that says, ``Hey, the
    transaction has gone through.''
        Apple and Google act as the direct not only the
    intermediaries, but they are basically the brokers to all of
    these issues. And they have been able to say with a straight
    face that they can do so--privacy--and put all the safeguards
    in place. All this Act does is hold them accountable to what
    they tell the American population. That is it.
        Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Thayer.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
        The gentleman yields back.
        Now, Dr. Joyce, you are recognized for your 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Today's hearing is an important step toward protecting our
    children from the harms of social media. And I want to
    personally thank Chairman Bilirakis and Chairman Guthrie for
    their tireless work to protect the most vulnerable among us.
        Two weeks ago, the Oversight subcommittee held a hearing on
    the risks of AI chatbots and the way that these platforms can
    be improved to keep children safe. As new technologies like AI
    chatbots are deployed online, we must honestly evaluate the
    potential benefits and risks and enact operational, futureproof
    safeguards that will protect current and future generations.
        So I welcome the opportunity to learn more about the
    proposals before us today and how they can achieve our shared
    goal of protecting children online.
        Mr. Lekas, the Don't Sell Kids' Data Act is predicated on
    the view that data practices of third parties are inherently
    harmful to children and teens. Yet, while privacy protections
    are essential, not every use of data is harmful.
        In your opinion, as drafted, could the Don't Sell Kids'
    Data Act bring about unintended adverse consequences for kids
    and teens?
        Mr. Lekas. Thank you for that question.
        In my view, yes.
        There are no exemptions in this law. And I think there is
    something that the general public doesn't understand, which is
    the many ways in which data is used behind the scenes actually
    provide us with benefits that we don't see, such as extending
    auto insurance to teenagers or enabling students to apply for
    financial aid or be scouted for college scholarships.
        There is a range of positive uses that don't rely on social
    media data that we have been talking about today but they rely
    on data that actually is protected by other privacy laws--the
    FCRA and the GLBA and these laws that already provide a means
    to protect that data so it is only used for legitimate
    purposes.
        Mr. Joyce. Continuing, Mr. Lekas: The Don't Sell Kids' Data
    Act includes private right of action to enforce that bill. And
    in your written testimony, you state that effective enforcement
    ``should be designed to improve privacy and safety practices''
    and that ``enforcement shouldn't be watered down with private
    rights of action.'' That is a quote from your testimony.
        Can you expand on that point and discuss how a private
    right of action could actually weaken enforcement and hurt
    consumers?
        Mr. Lekas. Happy to.
        We have seen a number of instances across the country, in
    State laws especially, with private rights of action that lead
    to lawsuits that are based on statutory violations even if
    there is no showing of harm. And the impact of this--there's a
    number of impacts that result from this.
        One is that it causes firms to act in a more defensive
    posture. They are trying to minimize their legal risk rather
    than actually trying to fulfill what their duty is to their
    consumers or their users or, in some cases, as in here, the
    youth.
        And another thing is it drives up costs, especially legal
    and compliance costs. Particularly hardest hit are the smallest
    firms--startups, small, medium-size enterprises.
        Mr. Joyce. Could this deter those small startups, those
    small firms, from entering into the market?
        Mr. Lekas. It very well could. There have been a lot of
    studies done on this about the actual economic costs on
    companies based on privacy laws. There is a law in Illinois
    called BIPA which has been particularly notable in this regard.
        So we want meaningful--we want meaningful enforcement and
    accountability, but we want that enforcement and accountability
    to lead to change where we need change and for there to be a
    recourse for individuals who are truly harmed by practices.
        And so that is why we would recommend in some of these
    children-focused laws to really home in on FTC and AG
    enforcement.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
        Mr. Thayer, many proposals rely on age-verification
    technology. Some have critiqued age verification as violating
    privacy and age-gating the internet.
        What advances in age-verification technology give you
    confidence that we can effectively verify users' ages
    accurately while at the same time protecting their privacy?
        Mr. Thayer. Well, in short, many.
        So you saw this play out in the Supreme Court in the Paxton
    case, where part of the assessment that the Court was grappling
    with was not just the content that was at issue but also the
    technological advances since the last time they evaluated this,
    which I believe was in, like, 1996 or 1992. And the internet
    has completely changed, right? I mean, with the amount of--the
    sheer amount of data that we give these companies has
    completely altered the landscape.
        And now you have vertically integrated systems like Apple
    and Google's systems, for instance, where Apple and Google both
    own not only the device, they own the operating system, they
    own the app store, and they even have their own native apps.
        So the idea that, you know, somehow they know exactly when
    you go to the bathroom and what you want to eat but yet your
    age confounds them, like, is a bit of a ridiculous and almost
    outdated view.
        Mr. Joyce. My time has expired.
        Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for holding this important
    hearing, and I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Doctor. Appreciate it very much.
        Now I will recognize last, but certainly not least, Dr.
    Miller-Meeks for her 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you, Chairman Bilirakis and
    Ranking Member Schakowsky, for allowing me to waive on to this
    important hearing.
        I also want to thank our witnesses for being here today.
        Protecting children and teens online is one of the most
    urgent responsibilities we face as policymakers. As digital
    platforms become central to how young people learn,
    communicate, and navigate the world, and, importantly, how much
    they trust these platforms, we must ensure that these spaces
    are safe, transparent, and designed with their wellbeing, not
    corporate profit, as the driving priority.
        And to one of the witness's points, it is astonishing to me
    that we can build computers, build platforms, build apps all
    through a digital world, but somehow Casey's General Store can
    verify your age no matter how old you look, but a digital
    platform that has this remarkable innovation can't verify an
    age when inappropriate apps or content is accessed.
        So my bill, the SPY Kids Act, takes an important step
    towards that goal by prohibiting online platforms from
    conducting market or product-focused research on children under
    13 and by requiring verifiable parental consent before such
    research can be conducted on teens.
        After all, didn't the public-health community raise red
    flags about cereal companies marketing directly to children for
    the type of cereal that they would purchase? So it is not
    impossible that we do this.
        This legislation matters because the online environment our
    children encounter today is fundamentally different from
    anything previous generations have experienced. Platforms are
    engineered to capture attention, collect sensitive information,
    and shape behavior in ways that young users may not recognize
    or be able to navigate safely.
        Children and teens should not be profited, studied, or
    targeted for commercial advantage, especially without parental
    oversight. By limiting how platforms can analyze and monetize
    minors' data, the SPY Kids Act helps reduce the risk of
    manipulative marketing practices, strengthens privacy
    protections, and reinforces the principle that the wellbeing of
    America's youth must come before business models of technology
    companies.
        Our goal is simple: to build an online ecosystem where
    children can grow, learn, and connect without being exploited
    in the process.
        Mr. Berkman, before I came to Congress, I was a doctor and
    director of the Iowa Department of Public Health. The CDC
    recommended limits to screen time. And in the medical world, we
    have strict ethical rules about conducting research on
    children. You cannot just use a child in research without the
    parents' informed consent, even when it comes to drawing cord
    blood.
        Yet it seems that Big Tech companies run tests and
    psychological experiments on our children every single day to
    see which color or sound keeps them addicted the longest.
        In your view, what are the most pressing risks minors face
    from being profiled or studied for commercial purposes online?
        Mr. Berkman. Yes, I would refer the Members to the former
    Surgeon General's advisory on mental health. First of all, the
    longer our children are online, the more at risk they are for
    adverse mental health outcomes, including suicide. They are
    also more at risk for all the acute harms that we see through
    social media: cyberbullying, sextortion, and trafficking as
    well.
        So innovation in the social media industry means, ``How
    many features can we design to get our children to use the
    social media platforms more?'' Our children's time is their
    profit.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you.
        Mr. Thayer, how can behavioral research targeting minors be
    used to shape features that may increase addictive or
    manipulative design patterns?
        Mr. Thayer. Well, we are seeing it play out in realtime. I
    mean, Big Tech's big experiment on our kids is evidence of
    that.
        Not to mention, as Congressman James noted, there is an
    immense amount of research that demonstrates that these
    addictive behaviors will actually manifest in multiple
    different ways even outside of the use of the app. So, even
    after the app is long turned off, they are still susceptible to
    all of the harm that has been caused based off of the
    repetitive nature of the videos, based off of the inundation of
    all the materials and even the features themselves, which
    happens not just at the app layer but at the app store and the
    operating system.
        These devices, on the whole, are designed to keep you
    addicted and designed to keep you--I guess the kids don't call
    it this anymore, but it is called FOMO. And so, ultimately, if
    you take--I mean, just ask any parent who has ever taken a
    tablet or phone away from a child. I mean, you will recognize
    that these kids do not look like themselves after that. They
    act a lot like your average drug addict.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Right. I have seen it in my doctor's
    office with both the parents and with children.
        Thank you so much.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. The gentlelady yields back.
        All right. So we have finished with questioning. However,
    now I would like to recognize Representative Castor.
        Now, I will tell Representative Castor that the documents
    that she is going to propose have already been submitted for
    the record, but you are recognized to elaborate on that if you
    would like.
        Ms. Castor. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
    adding to the record a past KOSA letter of 10/15/25 from 408
    organizations in all 50 States calling on House and Senate
    leadership to pass the Senate version of KOSA.
        Also, a parent letter to Congress of November 24th. It is a
    letter from over 300 parents to the House Energy and Commerce
    urging them to pass the Senate KOSA and stand strongly against
    the demands of the tech industry to gut this and other
    children's online privacy and safety legislation.
        The Common Sense Media opposition letter of December 1st
    opposing these versions of KOSA and COPPA 2.0.
        And the ParentsSOS KOSA 1-pager of December 1st, a
    coalition of over 20 families who have lost their children to
    online harms, with significant concerns about the House
    Republican KOSA draft.
        Mr. Berkman mentioned the U.S. Surgeon General's advisory
    of 2023. It is very important that that is in the record.
        The 2023 American Psychological Association advisory
    examining the potential beneficial and harmful effects of
    social media, including 10 recommendations based on scientific
    evidence.
        The Pew Research Center report on teens, social media, and
    mental health of 2025 saying that roughly one in five teens say
    social media sites hurt their mental health and a growing share
    think that they harm people their age.
        Also, the 2024 Federal Trade Commission report, ``A Look
    Behind the Scenes.'' That is the detailed report finding large
    social media and video-streaming companies have engaged in vast
    surveillance of users, with lax privacy controls and inadequate
    safeguards for kids and teens.
        The Design It For Us letter of December 1st, 2025. Several
    organizations, led by Design It For Us, in support of a strong
    KOSA; in opposition to a Federal provision that would undermine
    existing State protection for kids.
        And the Senate Judiciary hearing materials. If you haven't
    read through the whistleblower materials or the transcripts and
    the questions, that would be very edifying for legislation.
        And the master complaint in the Meta lawsuit, 2025.
        And ``Teen Accounts, Broken Promises: How Instagram Is
    Failing to Protect Minors,'' the 2025 Fair Play report on the
    weaknesses of Meta's teen accounts, spearheaded by a
    whistleblower and verified by university researchers.
        Thank you for including these in the record today.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Absolutely.
        I ask unanimous consent that the documents on the staff
    documents list be submitted for the record. If I don't hear any
    objections, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Bilirakis. OK, folks. Thank you very much.
        Again, I remind Members that they have 10 business days to
    submit questions for the record. And I ask the witnesses to
    respond to the questions promptly. Members should submit their
    questions by the close of the business day on December 16th.
        And I would like to thank everyone for being here today.
    The testimony was excellent. I thought it was a great hearing.
        And I want to thank the parents--the parents that are here
    today on behalf of their children and other children. We
    appreciate you so very much, and the personal stories
    definitely do matter.
        So, without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]