    [Senate Hearing 119-137]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 119-137

                     CHILDREN'S SAFETY IN THE DIGITAL ERA:
                         STRENGTHENING PROTECTIONS AND
                             ADDRESSING LEGAL GAPS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION
                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 19, 2025
                                   __________

                               Serial No. J-119-5
                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

                    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            www.judiciary.senate.gov
                                www.govinfo.gov
                                   ______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    61-324                  WASHINGTON : 2026

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                      CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman

    LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois,
    JOHN CORNYN, Texas                       Ranking Member
    MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah                 SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
    JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri                CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
    THOM TILLIS, North Carolina          RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
    JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana              MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri               ALEX PADILLA, California
    KATIE BOYD BRITT, Alabama            PETER WELCH, Vermont
    ASHLEY MOODY, Florida                ADAM B. SCHIFF, California

                 Kolan Davis, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
             Joe Zogby, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Grassley, Hon. Charles E.........................................     1
    Durbin, Hon. Richard J...........................................     2
    Blackburn, Hon. Marsha...........................................     4
    Klobuchar, Hon. Amy..............................................     5

                                   WITNESSES

    Balkam, Stephen..................................................    14
        Prepared statement...........................................    39
        Responses to written questions...............................    49

    Goldberg, Carrie.................................................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    51
        Responses to written questions...............................    98

    Guffey, Hon. Brandon.............................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................   100
        Responses to written questions...............................   103

    Leary, Mary Graw.................................................    11
        Prepared statement...........................................   104
        Responses to written questions...............................   124

    Pizzuro, John....................................................    13
        Prepared statement...........................................   131
        Responses to written questions...............................   141

                                    APPENDIX

    Items submitted for the record...................................   143

                     CHILDREN'S SAFETY IN THE DIGITAL ERA:
                         STRENGTHENING PROTECTIONS AND
                             ADDRESSING LEGAL GAPS

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2025

                                  United States Senate,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:17 a.m., in
    Room 226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E.
    Grassley, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Grassley [presiding], Cornyn, Lee,
    Hawley, Kennedy, Blackburn, Schmitt, Britt, Moody, Durbin,
    Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Hirono, Booker, Padilla, Welch, and
    Schiff.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,
                 A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

        Chairman Grassley. Good morning, everybody.
        In today's digital era, our young people face risks that
    previous generations couldn't even have imagined. Even though
    technology brings amazing opportunities for education and
    growth, it also opens doors to new dangers that we must
    confront. This isn't the first hearing we've had on this issue,
    and, unfortunately, it probably won't be the last. We held a
    hearing on this same subject roughly a year ago when we brought
    CEOs from some of the largest social media companies to discuss
    safety issues on their platforms, and we held a similar hearing
    a year before that.
        On the one hand, this is alarming because the problem is
    getting worse. In 2023, as an instance, the NCMEC Cyber Tip
    Line received 36-and-two-tenths million reports of suspected
    online child sexual exploitation, a 12 percent increase over
    2022. And even though the numbers haven't been published for
    2024, it seems that they're expected to go up.
        Additionally alarming are the new technologies that are
    being used by bad actors to exploit children online. Predators
    can use generative AI, for instance, to take normal images of
    children and manipulate them to create novel forms of CSAM. In
    2024 alone, NCMEC reported almost 61,000 instances of
    generative artificial intelligence CSAM.
        Despite this, so far, Congress has enacted no significant
    legislation to address these dangers against children, and tech
    platforms have been unhelpful in our legislative efforts. Big
    Tech promises to collaborate, but they're noticeably silent in
    supporting legislation that would affect meaningful change. In
    fact, Big Tech's lobbyists swarm this Hill, armed with red
    herrings and scare tactics, suggesting that it will somehow
    break the internet if we implement even these very modest
    reforms.
        Meanwhile, these tech platforms generate revenues that
    dwarf the economies of most nations. So how do they make so
    much money? They do it by compromising our data and privacy and
    keeping our children's eyes glued to the screens through
    addictive algorithms. Indeed, in one recent study, 46 percent
    of teens reported that they're online, quote, ``almost
    constantly,'' end quote. This has had severe mental
    consequences for adolescents. It has also led to a rise in
    sexual exploitation, as some algorithms have actually connected
    victims to their abusers.
        Should such tech platforms be allowed to profit at the
    expense of our children's privacy, our children's safety, and
    our children's health? Should they be allowed to contribute to
    a toxic digital ecosystem without being held accountable? So I
    believe to everybody, the answer is very clear. When these
    platforms fail to implement adequate safety measures, they're
    complicit in the harms that follow, and they should be held
    accountable.
        That said, there are some signs of encouragement. Just as
    new technologies are being developed that exacerbate harm to
    children online, so too are tech technologies being developed
    to combat exploitation. As one example, with AI, rapidly
    evolving open-source safety tools are being developed to
    recognize and report CSAM. Some of the witnesses here today
    will speak to the effectiveness of these tools.
        Additionally, on a Committee with some of the most diverse
    viewpoints in the United States Senate, we have actually
    advanced bipartisan legislation that addresses legal gaps in
    our current framework, especially those related to the blanket
    immunity that Section 230 provides. Last Congress, for example,
    we reported several online safety bills out of Committee with
    overwhelming bipartisan support, and there are a number of
    bills that are being considered and refined this Congress,
    which we'll give attention to in due course.
        That being said, we can't come up with a wise and effective
    legislative solution without first understanding the nature and
    scope of the problem. And so, that's why we're having this
    hearing today. Our witnesses come from various backgrounds and
    represent very diverse perspectives, all of which point to the
    need for our Committee to improve legislation and continue our
    work to keep kids safe.
        So with that, I'll open things up to Ranking Member Durbin
    to give opening remarks. After that, we'll hear from Senators
    Blackburn and Klobuchar. Then, I'll introduce the witnesses and
    swear. Go ahead.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
               A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Senator Durbin. I want to personally thank you, Senator
    Grassley. This is unusual, a change in leadership in this
    Committee, and yet, an issue which we took up very seriously in
    the last few years on a bipartisan basis has survived the
    change. And in fact, this hearing is evidence of the
    determination of the Chairman. I'd like to join him in that
    assurance that we're taking this issue very seriously.
        It was almost exactly 2 years ago this Committee held a
    similar hearing. We heard from six witnesses about the harm
    social media does to our kids and grandkids: a mom whose son
    took his own life after he was bullied online; a young woman
    whose mental and physical health suffered as she chased the
    unattainable lifestyle depicted on Instagram and other apps;
    experts who told us how Big Tech designs their platforms to be
    addictive, keeping users online for longer and longer and
    longer times so they can be fed more targeted ads; individuals
    combating the tidal wave of child sexual abuse material, or
    CSAM, flowing across the internet.
        At the end of that hearing, I told the witnesses and the
    many parents and young people in the audience I was going to
    roll up my sleeves, get to work, and pass legislation to
    protect kids from online safety concerns. That spring, the
    Committee reported five bills that help protect kids online,
    and included my STOP CSAM Act. And I want to thank Senator
    Hawley for joining me in that effort, which we hope to renew
    soon, along with bipartisan bills from Senators Graham,
    Blumenthal, Klobuchar, Cornyn, Blackburn, and Ossoff. These
    bills were reported out of this Committee unanimously.
        For anyone who is a newcomer to Capitol Hill or to this
    Committee, you have the American political spectrum from one
    end to the other on this Committee. And for us to do anything
    unanimously is nothing short of a political miracle. We did it.
    The Senate Judiciary Committee contains Members across the
    spectrum, the most conservative Republican to the most
    progressive Democrat. It's almost unheard of to pass a bill
    unanimously, yet we did it--five times.
        One of these bills, the REPORT Act, later signed into law
    by President Biden, strengthened the Cyber Tip Line, run by the
    National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. As for the
    rest, different story. Big Tech opened up a $61.5 million
    lobbying war chest to make sure these bills never became law.
        Now, let's be clear. None of these bills are the silver
    bullet that would make the internet completely safe for our
    kids. But they would be significant steps toward finally
    holding tech companies accountable for the harms that they
    caused, the damages they caused, the death that they caused,
    and that's why the tech companies opposed them as strongly as
    they did. They didn't do it publicly. Publicly, oh, it's such a
    great idea. But privately, they just beat the hell out of us.
        So just over a year ago, I called in the CEOs of five major
    tech platforms--some I had to issue subpoenas--to demand
    answers on the record under oath. And that hearing produced
    some results. Several companies implemented child safety
    improvements just days before their CEOs came to testify. And
    Meta's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, under pressure from Senator
    Hawley--artful questioning--gave a long-overdue apology to the
    parents his platform had hurt.
        But apologies and too-little-too-late reforms are simply
    not enough. The dozens of parents and survivors in that room,
    the thousands impacted across the country demand more, and I
    for one plan to follow through. In the coming weeks, Senator
    Hawley and I will reintroduce the STOP CSAM Act. This bill will
    finally open the courthouse door to families whose children
    have been victimized due to Big Tech's failure to safeguard
    their online platforms. I hope Senator Grassley will help me
    schedule a timely markup on that bill.
        And this week, I'll join Senators Graham, Whitehouse,
    Hawley, Klobuchar, and Blackburn to introduce a bill to sunset
    Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in 2 years. This
    is long overdue. Section 230 and the legal immunity it provides
    to Big Tech has been on the books since 1996, long before
    social media was part of our lives. To the extent this
    protection was ever needed, its usefulness for this so-called
    fledgling industry has long since passed.
        I'm under no illusion that it'll be easy to pass
    legislation to protect kids online and finally make the tech
    industry legally accountable for the damage that they're
    causing. But they ought to face the same liability as every
    other industry in America.
        Just last year, Big Tech and its allies in the House killed
    a bill, the Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act, a bill
    introduced, I believe, by Senator Blumenthal and Senator
    Blackburn, as well. That would have imposed a basic duty of
    care on tech platforms. It passed the Senate 91-to-3. But Big
    Tech did it in in the House--couldn't even get it up for a
    vote.
        The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children
    receives 100,000 reports to its Cyber Tip Line every single
    day. That's not just a statistic. Each of these reports
    involves a victim. It could be anything from images of a
    toddler being raped to a teenager being coerced, extorted,
    groomed, and encouraged to commit suicide--100,000 reports in
    the United States every single day. I hope everyone keeps that
    in mind as we hold this hearing. We cannot wait. We have to
    move. I hope it drives the public to demand Congress finally do
    something.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Blackburn.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN,
               A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I want to say thank you to our witnesses for being here
    today. And, Mr. Guffey, we appreciate that you are here and
    sharing your story.
        And, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that it was over a year
    ago that we had tech execs in front of us and that nothing much
    has changed. That is the tragic part of this situation, that
    nothing much has changed. There's been window dressing. There
    have been ads that have been run saying, look at us, look at
    what we're doing. But, unfortunately, there is no enforcement
    to this.
        That is why it is still dangerous for kids to be online.
    They're still facing online threats, exposure, sexual
    exploitation, drug trafficking, promotion of suicide, eating
    disorders. And the thing that is so interesting is, in the
    physical world, there are laws against this. It is only in the
    virtual space that it remains the Wild West and our children
    can be attacked every single day, nonstop, 24/7, 365. It is
    long overdue.
        And the Kids Online Safety Act that Senator Blumenthal and
    I have worked on for years now has been mentioned already this
    morning. And there is such a broad bipartisan coalition,
    whether it's parents, principals, teachers, pediatricians,
    child psychologists, even teens themselves have come to us and
    have said, something needs to be done about this. We have had
    companies like Microsoft, X, Snap, who have supported this
    bill. Unfortunately, kids are still being harmed online. I
    talked to a mom recently whose child died. They met somebody
    online who sold them supposedly a Xanax. They met him on Snap.
    They took what they thought was a Xanax and they died. It was
    fentanyl.
        So these are the dangers that are there. And while there is
    broad bipartisan support, Senator Grassley mentioned the
    lobbying efforts of some of the Big Tech firms and how they
    went with distortions and lies to the House, and this bill did
    not get through. So it is time to stop--stop this and get it
    passed.
        Now, Senator Durbin mentioned the bills we sent out of
    Committee here last year. There was one that got signed into
    law, and it was the bill that Senator Ossoff and I did, the
    REPORT Act. And this deals with NCMEC's Cyber Tip Line and
    increases the time that evidence submitted to NCMEC has to be
    preserved, and it gives law enforcement more time to
    investigate, to get these criminals into court, and then get
    them locked up. And we still have so much work to do.
        Now, Senator Klobuchar and I are going to lead the Privacy,
    Technology, and the Law Subcommittee, and these issues will be
    coming before us. We've got plenty of work to do. We're looking
    forward, Mr. Chairman--I look forward to convening this
    Committee, working to make certain that we are pushing this
    legislation, that we are going to protect our children in the
    virtual space.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Klobuchar.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
               A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

        Senator Klobuchar. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman,
    and I am truly looking forward to working with Senator
    Blackburn on this important Subcommittee. As many of you know,
    Senator Lee and I chaired the Antitrust Subcommittee for a long
    time, but I actually think this situation right now, with the
    possibility of moving on these bills, is going to be a very
    positive development.
        As Senator Blackburn just pointed out, despite the strong
    support that we have had from Senator Durbin and Senator
    Grassley--and Senator Graham when he chaired this Committee or
    was the Ranking on this Committee--we've just continued to run
    into roadblocks to passing these laws, and it's getting
    absolutely absurd. Senator Grassley is well aware of the
    antitrust tech bill that he and I lead that hundreds and
    hundreds of millions of dollars were spent against it in TV
    ads. And despite the fact that the companies--FANG, as we call
    them--have agreed in other countries to some of these consumer
    protections, that did not happen in America.
        And I think that this piece of it, whether it's Instagram's
    promotion of content that encourages eating disorders, the
    frightening rise of nonconsensual AI-generated pornographic
    deepfakes, or the tragic stories of kids losing their lives to
    fentanyl-laced pills will most likely be leading the way as we
    continue to push our antitrust and privacy and news bills.
        Just this month, this Committee heard from Bridgette
    Norring of Hastings, Minnesota. Her son, Devin, was struggling
    with migraines and bought what he thought was a Percocet over
    Snapchat to deal with the pain. But it really wasn't a
    Percocet. It was a fake pill laced with fentanyl. And with that
    one pill--as we say, one pill kills--he died at age 19.
        For too long, the companies have turned a blind eye when
    young children joined their platforms, used algorithms that
    pushed harmful content--they have done that--and provided a
    venue for dealers to sell deadly drugs like fentanyl. We know
    that social media also increases the risk of mental illness,
    addiction, exploitation, and even suicide among kids. I will
    never forget the testimony of the FBI Director telling us that,
    in just 1 year--I believe it was 2023--over 20 kids had
    committed suicide just because of the pornography and the
    images that had been put out there when they were innocently
    sending a picture to who they thought was a girlfriend or a
    boyfriend.
        That's why this Committee has taken this on on a bipartisan
    basis, and I am hopeful that this hearing will be the beginning
    of actually passing these bills into law.
        Representative Guffey, you and I met through Senator Cruz,
    and the bill that he and I have, the TAKE IT DOWN Act. We have
    an additional bill that Senator Cornyn and I have that's really
    important that's passed through this Committee, the SHIELD Act.
    And as you know all too well, the threat of dissemination alone
    can be tragic, especially for kids.
        We need to enact the Kids Online Safety Act, which, thanks
    to Senators Blumenthal and Blackburn, have passed the Senate on
    a 91-to-3 vote. As we know, some of these are stalled out in
    the House. We need to get the Federal rules of the road in
    place for safeguarding our data. According to a recent study,
    social media platforms generate $11 billion in revenue in 2022
    from advertising directed at kids and teenagers--including $2
    billion in ad profits derived from users age 12 and under.
        I am supportive, as was mentioned by Senator Durbin, of the
    legislation that he and Senators Graham and Hawley and many
    others to open the courtroom doors to those harmed by social
    media by making those reforms to Section 230. That legislation
    was enacted long before any of this was going on. And somehow,
    with respect to other industries, we've been able to make smart
    decisions to put more safety rules in place. Just ask those
    passengers that were on that flight that flipped upside down in
    Toronto who were in those seats that were the result of safety
    rules that were put in place.
        And yet, when it comes to this, we just put up our hands
    and say, no, they're lobbying against us, or they have too
    many, or we like some of the people that work there--and we do
    nothing. And by doing nothing, instead of reaching some
    reasonable accommodations of settlements or things we can do on
    legislation, we just let them run wild at the expense of our
    kids' lives.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. When you consider five bills got out of
    this Committee last Congress, and over the last few years,
    Congress has only been in session about 2\1/2\ days a week--
    it's supposed to be a new regime. I'm not sure that it is. And
    I would hope that some of you folks on the Democrat side would
    push Republicans to make sure we keep the Senate in session
    more than 2\1/2\ days a week so we can get some of this done
    because we had hardly any important legislation in the last 2
    years. We were basically just a confirming body. Take that. I
    hope you enjoyed doing that like I enjoyed complaining because
    we were only meeting 2\1/2\ days a week when the Democrats
    controlled the Senate.
        I'm going to introduce our guests today. Our first witness,
    Mr. Brandon Guffey, you serve now in the South Carolina House
    of Representatives. Following the tragic loss of your son,
    Gavin, Mr. Guffey became an advocate for mental health
    awareness and combating online crimes. And as Senator Blackburn
    said, we're sorry for the loss of your son, Mr. Guffey. It's
    probably hard for you to be here to talk about it, but thank
    you for being here.
        Next, we have Ms. Carrie Goldberg, a plaintiff's attorney
    and founder of the law firm C.A. Goldberg, PLLC. She
    specializes in representing victims of sexual abuse, child
    exploitation, online harassment, and other forms of digital
    abuse.
        Professor Mary Leary, a former Federal prosecutor, current
    law professor at Catholic University of America. Professor
    Leary directs the law school's modern prosecution program, and
    her scholarship focuses on exploitation of women and children.
    Professor Leary has an upcoming article that dives deeply into
    the history of Section 230 and its role in facilitating child
    sexual abuse material.
        Mr. John Pizzuro is CEO of Raven, started as a former law
    enforcement, Raven gathers subject matter experts across
    multiple disciplines to help protect children from online
    exploitation. Mr. Pizzuro is a former commander of the New
    Jersey Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force program.
        Mr. Stephen Balkam, CEO and founder of Family Online Safety
    Institute. This international nonprofit is dedicated to making
    the internet safer for kids. Before founding the institute in
    2007, Mr. Balkam spent 30 years as a leader in the nonprofit
    sector, championing online safety. His work at the institute
    brings together those in government, industry, and the
    nonprofit sector to create a culture of responsibility.
        Now, I'd like to ask you to stand and be sworn. Raise your
    right hand.
        [Witnesses are sworn in.]
        Chairman Grassley. They have all answered affirmatively.
        Mr. Guffey, we'll start with you and go from my left to my
    right.

               STATEMENT OF HON. BRANDON GUFFEY, FATHER,

              AND REPRESENTATIVE, SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF

               REPRESENTATIVES, ROCK HILL, SOUTH CAROLINA

        Representative Guffey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
    distinguished Senators. Thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today. My name is Representative Brandon Guffey, and
    I'm here to share why protecting youth from online dangers and
    holding Big Tech companies responsible is now my life's
    mission.
        Sometimes God sends you down a path that you never thought
    you would be on. In July of 2022, I lost my oldest son, Gavin
    Guffey, to suicide. On Gavin's last Instagram post a week prior
    to his death, he said, ``This week, help me look up to where my
    head should have been years ago. Jesus, in His word, has given
    me a high that no other can compare to His love.'' He ended
    that post with a <3 sign. On July 27, Gavin would send out the
    <3 sign again on a black screen to his friends and his younger
    brother, Coen Guffey, who's with me here today. At 1:40 a.m.,
    Gavin took his life.
        We quickly learned that Gavin was contacted on Instagram
    around midnight when he told his friends he would jump off the
    game to chat with her. In just 1 hour and 40 minutes, my son
    was gone. The predator that contacted Gavin was recently
    extradited to the U.S. 2 weeks ago from Lagos, Nigeria.
        The predator not only attacked my son, Gavin, who was 17,
    but also began to extort my 16-year-old son, my 14-year-old
    cousin, and then myself. One of the messages I received read,
    ``Did I tell you that your son begged for his life? '' I hope
    you ask, How is this possible? It's possible because Instagram
    removed the profile that attacked Gavin, but left up the
    additional profiles that predators use. One of those is the
    account that began to attack my family after Meta was fully
    aware of this predator.
        I vowed from that moment that I would make it my life's
    mission to protect children online and would not stop. I was
    shortly elected to the South Carolina House, and within 4
    months of taking office, successfully passed what is now known
    as Gavin's Law. Sextortion is mandated in education throughout
    the State of South Carolina, and every kid at least has to have
    some awareness so they don't feel alone like my son did that
    night.
        I've worked with many States on similar legislation. I
    started a nonprofit speaking to teens about mental health and
    the dangers of Big Tech. I filed a lawsuit against Meta in
    January 2024, sold my businesses, and went to work for a tech
    company that provides tools to protect children. I've also
    become an advocate on the Hill, urging Members to see this as
    what it is, and that is, the greatest threat to the next
    generation.
        In the 2 years of my advocacy, I've seen Big Tech lobby
    fight us every inch and Congress cave instead of listening to
    we, the people. I witnessed KOSA pass Senate 91-to-3, go to the
    House where the Speaker refused to let it be heard.
        Senators Graham and Durbin have the DEFIANCE Act. Senators
    Blackburn and Coons, the NO FAKES Act. These are great bills.
    I've even taken notes and reintroduced them on a State level in
    South Carolina, like the ELVIS Act in Tennessee. Senators Cruz
    and Klobuchar led the TAKE IT DOWN Act, and has it already
    passed the Senate. I'd like nothing more than to be proven
    wrong about the inefficiency of Congress by having the House
    pass the TAKE IT Act soon.
        Speaker Johnson, Chairman Guthrie, the ball is in your
    court with a bill to protect American lives. Please don't let
    us down, again.
        I've witnessed over 40 teens take their lives since Gavin
    just due to sextortion, while we as lawmakers fight amongst
    ourselves. Will it take one of your own children or
    grandchildren to finally get fed up enough to move?
        Sextortion is the only--is only one of the many harms due
    to our children due to Big Tech's lack of accountability. Big
    Tech is the Big Tobacco of this generation. We see groups such
    as NCMEC and NCOSE give statistics over and over. We see parent
    survivors knock on your doors daily, and Section 230 will go
    down as one of the greatest disasters, allowing Big Tech to run
    rampant without repercussions. We watch companies spend
    millions lobbying, fighting us in court, and continuously
    absolving themselves of responsibility.
        In this very Chamber last January, I stood holding a photo
    of Gavin while Mark Zuckerberg offered a forced, pathetic
    apology. Where I'm from, we have a saying that says, ``Don't
    talk about it. Be about it.'' And until these companies can be
    held responsible and the billions they make off of advertising
    to our children, Big Tech will simply never be about it.
        I use this as an example. Meta pulled down 63,000 accounts
    in 1 day in one country, just from Lagos, Nigeria, and just off
    of Instagram. Now, ask yourself, did they pull those down to
    actually help our children? And if so, why haven't they done
    more since? Or did they pull it down for a PR stunt? I beg to
    say that that is nothing more than a PR stunt so they can get
    that pat on the back, as if they are doing something good--but
    have done nothing since.
        I got way offline. But I want to focus on my main message
    to Big Tech. As lawmakers, I think we have to say, either get
    in line or get offline. And right now, we have too many
    politicians making decisions based on their next election and
    not enough leaders making decisions based on the next
    generation. Are we politicians? Or are we leaders? We can't
    just talk about it. We have to be about it. And if we can't
    protect our next generation, then what are we even fighting
    for? Tomorrow needs you, and our children need you now.
        [The prepared statement of Representative Guffey appears as
    a submission for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Ms. Goldberg.

                 STATEMENT OF CARRIE GOLDBERG, FOUNDER,
               C.A. GOLDBERG LAW FIRM, NEW YORK, NEW YORK

        Ms. Goldberg. Chair Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, and
    distinguished Members of the Senate Committee of the Judiciary,
    my name is Carrie Goldberg, and I'm a lawyer who represents
    families catastrophically injured by Big Tech. I want to tell
    you about a few of the cases I've been working on for the past
    decade.
        I'm the originating attorney in a case against Snap where
    our client's children were matched with drug dealers and sold
    counterfeit fentanyl-laced pills that killed them. The case now
    has 90 families in it from all over the country, including
    families that you heard from last week. And I'm also joined by
    my client, Amy Neville, the mother of 14-year-old Alexander
    Neville.
        In another case against Snap, criminals are exploiting a
    known security vulnerability to access CSAM and blackmail and
    extort kids with it. Yesterday, the ninth circuit dismissed one
    of my cases representing a 15-year-old severely autistic boy
    who, at age 15, was funneled into Grindr's marketing campaign
    and was recommended to 4 different pedophiles who raped him
    over 4 consecutive days. In court, Grindr's lawyers said that
    they had no duty to restrict children's access to their hookup
    app.
        In another case of mine, a 13-year-old, L.S., was lured to
    the site BandLab, another site with no age restrictions. She
    thought she was meeting a 17-year-old boy, but it turned out to
    be 40-year-old Noah Madrano from Portland, Oregon. He posted
    openly on this music-sharing platform songs about her called--
    one called ``Pedophile in A Minor''--a song called ``Pedophile
    in A Minor.'' On June 24, 2022, Madrano drove 15 hours to her
    home, abducted her on the way to school, stuffed her in the
    trunk of the car, and raped and abused her for 8 days. Despite
    there being a national manhunt, BandLab refused to provide law
    enforcement with key information that could have led to her
    fast rescue. They wanted to respect Madrano's privacy, they
    said.
        Finally, I represent the family of 16-year-old Aidan Walden
    from Colorado, who, in July 2020, discovered a website that
    glorifies suicide, and learned on that website about a product
    that he could buy from Amazon and get Prime delivered to him
    and use it to end his life. Two months later, his grieving
    mother exchanged 57 messages with Amazon telling them about
    their product being amplified on a suicide message board. And
    yet Amazon, despite knowing there was no household use for this
    product besides suicide, continue to promote, sell, and deliver
    it for 26 more months. I now represent 27 other families who
    bought it after Amazon sold it to Aidan Walden and heard from
    his mother.
        In all of my cases, tech has two main defenses: Section
    230, and that they didn't know. Now, I was here a year ago with
    my clients, including Amy, when this Committee so powerfully
    told the CEOs of Meta, Twitter, Discord, Snap, and TikTok that
    you were done with discussions and you wanted solutions. The
    most important thing I can say is that families want
    legislation like KOSA, sunsetting Section 230, the DEFIANCE
    Act, SHIELD. They want laws that increase accountability, that
    create protection boards at the FTC, the Cyber Tip Line, create
    procedures to contest a platform's failure to remove CSAM. They
    want injunctive relief. And families want civil remedies
    against platforms when they've increased the risk of harm.
        Now, take for example my case representing A.M., one of the
    first cases to overcome Section 230 on trafficking and product
    liability. At age 11, A.M., lived in a normal town, living a
    normal life in Michigan when she went to a sleepover and
    discovered a website called Omegle. It matches strangers for
    private live-streaming. Omegle matched her with a man who made
    her his online sex slave for 3 years--extorting her, making her
    at the beck and call of he and his friends to perform for her,
    sometimes interrupting her at the dinner table or at school,
    even forcing her to go back on Omegle to recruit more kids. The
    abuse eventually ended when his home, which he shared with his
    wife's daycare, was raided and images of A.M. and other young
    girls were found.
        In that case, Omegle did not intend my client's injuries. I
    could not claim that they knew who she or the offender was.
    Instead, I pointed to the mountain of evidence that Omegle had,
    knowledge of how prevalent the harm was on its platform. I
    pointed to criminal cases, articles, exposes, academic
    journals.
        And I just want to say two more things. As a result of how
    we pled the case, we advanced into discovery and acquired
    60,000 documents exposing the extent of injured children. And
    that led to them agreeing to shutter Omegle forever on November
    8, 2023.
        Now, we are at a consensus today. We are all here to not
    repeat history. Section 230 was supposed to incentivize
    responsible content moderation. Instead, it did the opposite.
    And as we look into the future, on behalf of the victims I
    represent, we are here to support laws that pressure platforms
    to know about the harms and to fix them.
        Thank you, and I look forward to questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Goldberg appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Ms. Goldberg. Now, Professor
    Leary.

                STATEMENT OF MARY GRAW LEARY, PROFESSOR

                 OF LAW, CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

                 COLUMBUS SCHOOL OF LAW, WASHINGTON, DC

        Professor Leary. Thank you, Chair Grassley, Ranking Member
    Durbin, and all the Members of this Committee. As has been
    mentioned, I'm really grateful for all the work this Committee
    has done on this issue. The experience our children are having
    in the digital space is one fraught with danger for them. And
    one might want to ask, why do you have to work so hard? Why do
    you have to keep passing these laws? Why are not the laws that
    Congress has had on the books regarding exploited crimes
    working?
        And there's lots of answers to that to be sure. But the
    common thread through this morning so far is Section 230 of the
    Communications Decency Act, which has transformed--which has
    been transformed into what I label a de facto near absolute
    immunity regime. And what I mean by that is exactly what Ms.
    Goldberg just said. This was a law that was designed to
    incentivize platforms for protection. And instead, it has
    incentivized them to harm.
        I want to make about five points that I think will help
    frame our discussion about Section 230. The first two are what
    I call framing principles. When one reviews the text, the
    history, the structure of Section 230 of the Communications
    Decency Act, it is clear that this is a law that is not stand-
    alone law protecting freedom of the internet as tech and its
    surrogates will try to argue. It is a law that is born out of a
    landscape of child protection. When you go back to the
    legislative history, there is no question the Senate with the
    Communications Decency Act, the House with the Internet Freedom
    and Families Act were wrestling with the same question. How, as
    you look to the Telecommunications Act, how could you, as
    Congress, have a safer internet and other media for youth? Not
    whether, but how? First point.
        Second point, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
    must be regarded as an experiment. And I say that because when
    you look at the promises tech made back in 1996, and when you
    look at the supporters of the IFFE in the House, what you see
    is they represented to you and to America that this would be a
    way in which we could protect our children. That was their
    claim. That was the promise.
        Point number three, the experiment has failed. The
    experiment has failed for all the reasons that have been said
    already. And why has it failed? And I would say to you, in
    addition to the reference to what happens here in Capitol Hill
    with regard to tech, the transformation of section 230 of the
    Communications Decency Act into a law that incentivizes harm
    was not by accident.
        It wasn't sort of something that just emerged from the
    internet. It was a systematic effort by tech and its surrogates
    to litigate that throughout this country. And they went across
    the country over 30 years arguing not for the narrow, limited
    protection for Good Samaritans that the Act states, but rather
    broad immunity. Interestingly, immunity is nowhere in Section
    230 of the Communications Decency Act, as a side note.
        That is--and that result has had human consequences, which
    we've heard today. And I think to highlight one that's been
    said, 99,000, 100,000 reports today will happen on the Cyber
    Tip Line. But it also has important effects in the courtroom
    that Ms. Goldberg alluded to, and I want to highlight a couple
    of them. One is, keep in mind this has become an immunity, not
    a defense, and that is essential for two important reasons.
    First, as an immunity, these cases are thrown out in a motion
    to dismiss, so there's no access to discovery.
        So when we say that victim survivors, States' attorneys
    general are shut out of the courtroom, we don't mean it's very
    hard to win these cases. We mean they are shut out of the
    courtroom, that they do not have their day in court,
    notwithstanding the harm that they've experienced. And I label
    this reality, the dual danger of de facto near absolute
    immunity.
        First, that shield, which has allowed platforms to engage
    in a list of criminal activities having nothing to do with
    publishing, that has allowed this industry to grow to a massive
    scale where one individual or one small company can cause
    massive harm, as we've heard. But the other part of that dual
    danger is, because it is an immunity, there is no access to
    discovery. There is no way to look under the hood of this
    incredibly dangerous industry. There's no guardrails. And that
    means that--as Senator Klobuchar pointed out--what that tells
    us, as I wrap up, is that there is no guardrails for the harm
    that these folks will experience.
        So I offer some suggestions of reform in my papers. But I
    think the key thing here is to keep the Good Samaritan
    protections that Section 230 has, but to get rid of the (c)(1)
    protections that have so distorted this incentivization for
    harm.
        And I would just encourage the Senate to listen to the
    words of Justice Thomas, where he has lamented about the
    reality of Section 230 and stated, ``Make no mistake about it,
    there is danger in delay,'' and that danger we can do, with the
    math. If we accept that 99,000 reports of NCMEC will be made
    today, that means that 12,375 reports will come in during this
    hearing. And in the last 5 minutes I've spoken, there have been
    344 reports. And if that's not reason to act enough, I don't
    know what is.
        Thank you, Chair.
        [The prepared statement of Professor Leary appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Professor.
        Now, Mr. Pizzuro.

               STATEMENT OF JOHN PIZZURO, CHIEF EXECUTIVE
                     OFFICER, RAVEN, IRVING, TEXAS

        Mr. Pizzuro. Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, and
    distinguished Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, thank
    you for the opportunity to testify today. As the CEO of Raven,
    an organization dedicated to transforming the Nation's response
    to child exploitation, I am here to urge decisive legislative
    action. Despite multiple testimonies before Congress, progress
    has been slow, hindered by special interest groups and
    financial incentives that favor the status quo. We must
    prioritize our children's safety and support those who protect
    them, above all else.
        New threats continue to emerge while old ones remain
    unaddressed. Artificial intelligence now enables offenders to
    manipulate regular images of children into explicit content,
    create images of children who do not even exist, and groom
    children at mass. Offenders now increasingly exploit children
    for financial gain in addition to their depraved sexual
    gratification. Yet legislative inaction allows this crisis to
    persist. The tech industry has not meaningfully reduced online
    victimization. Their voluntary cooperation with law enforcement
    is minimal, allowing offenders to continue exploiting children
    with impunity.
        In 2023, for example, there were 36 million cyber tips, yet
    Apple, holding a 57 percent market share in the U.S., only
    reported 275. According to investigators in the field, Discord
    notifies users of legal process and subpoenas, enabling
    offenders to erase evidence before law enforcement can act,
    allowing offenders to continue to target our children.
        Electronic service providers permit offenders to rejoin
    platforms under new aliases with the same IP address while
    failing to block foreign IP addresses used for sextortion. This
    lack of enforcement emboldens criminals and leaves our children
    unprotected. Poor moderation, the lack of parental controls in
    relation to age identification, and inadequate safety measures
    further expose children to these dangers.
        As mentioned a lot today, social media algorithms push
    harmful content, enabling predators to reach victims globally.
    AI-powered grooming will allow offenders to manipulate children
    at scale, mimicking their language and behaviors to establish
    trust. Troubling, even ChatGPT-like tools can provide
    information on grooming tactics when framed in seemingly
    innocent ways.
        These dangers extend beyond child exploitation to drug
    access with platforms facilitating the sale of fentanyl and
    illicit substances. Law enforcement is overwhelmed and under-
    resourced. Undercover operations have been highly successful in
    apprehending offenders, but the increasing volume of cyber tips
    has made proactive investigations nearly impossible. In the
    U.S., there are 229,000 IP addresses currently right now
    trading peer-to-peer images of known child sexual abuse
    material, yet only 923 are being actually worked. Studies
    indicate that over 50 percent of those individuals are hands-on
    offenders with 8 to 13 victims each.
        The mental toll on those who investigate these crimes is
    severe. Prosecutors, child advocates, and law enforcement
    officers are exposed to daily horrific content leading to
    burnout and PTSD. We must provide them with adequate wellness
    resources to ensure they can continue their critical work.
        As a retired New Jersey State Police commander, I have seen
    firsthand what can happen. Despite its critical role, the
    Internet Crimes Against Children Program, ICAC, has been
    chronically underfunded, despite being responsible for most of
    the child investigations in the U.S.
        While authorized for $60 million in 2008, only $31.9
    million has been appropriated. That's $522,000 per task force
    per year to investigate child exploitation. That's why I urge
    everyone here to co-sponsor the PROTECT Our Children
    Reauthorization Act of 2025.
        Children are our most valuable resource, and their
    victimization has lasting consequences on society. Raven stands
    ready to collaborate with Members of the Senate, House, Trump
    administration, and the CEOs of Big Tech to develop effective
    solutions. Quite frankly, the phrase ``talk is cheap'' is a 100
    percent accurate. Action is only--the only remedy. How many of
    our children and those who protect them will be impacted as a
    result of our inaction and debate? Make no mistake, right now,
    offenders are winning, children are suffering. Those fighting
    to protect them are left to struggle without the support they
    need to rescue victims, hold offenders accountable, and bolster
    their own mental health in the process.
        Legislative action is overdue. The solutions are within
    your power. Our children are counting on you, and I'm counting
    on you. Thank you so much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pizzuro appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Pizzuro. Now, Mr. Balkam.

                  STATEMENT OF STEPHEN BALKAM, FOUNDER

                  AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FAMILY

                ONLINE SAFETY INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Balkam. Good morning, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member
    Durbin, and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you
    very much for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name
    is Stephen Balkam, and I'm the founder and CEO of the Family
    Online Safety Institute. For nearly two decades, FOSI has
    worked with industry, government, academia, and the nonprofit
    sector to create a safer digital world for children and
    families. I'm also here as a father and a newly minted
    grandfather.
        Chairman, this is my third time testifying before this
    Committee, having first appeared in July of 1995, a Committee
    hearing called ``Cyber Porn and Children.'' While much has
    changed, our mission remains the same. We believe in a three-
    pronged approach to online safety: enlightened public policy,
    industry best practices, and good digital parenting. Our goal
    is to create protections for kids, as well as empower young
    people to navigate digital spaces safely and responsibly. We
    want to protect kids on the internet, not from it.
        Parents of younger children should have the strongest
    protections possible, including easy-to-find and easy-to-use
    parental controls. But as kids grow, our role as parents shifts
    from being helicopter parents to copilots, guiding them as they
    build digital resilience. Research shows that teens value
    online safety tools like blocking, muting, reporting, and
    privacy settings. Teaching them to use these effectively
    fosters independence and self-regulations. We have found that
    empowerment is often the best form of protection. We must
    prepare young people to engage safely and thoughtfully with the
    digital world, equipping them with digital literacy and an
    understanding of their rights and responsibilities.
        Now, recently there have been calls to ban young people
    from social media and other online spaces. Blanket bans deprive
    children from any positive experiences they may have, are
    difficult to enforce, and open up too many possible unintended
    consequences. After all, children have rights, including the
    right to safely access the web, to information, free
    expression, and to connect with others. Instead of blanket
    bans, we need thoughtful restrictions that include input from
    young people and that account for children's evolving maturity.
        While technical solutions such as age assurance are
    improving, there is no universally approved system as yet. It
    is challenging to get the balance between safety, privacy, and
    effectiveness right. And as I said recently at our annual
    conference in front of 350 industry leaders, quote, ``You can
    and must do better to create easy-to-find and easy-to-use
    controls for parents and online safety tools for teens and
    young people. You can and must do better to publicize and
    promote those controls and tools. And you can and must do
    better to collaborate with each other to harmonize your tools
    across the ecosystem so that parents and teens are not
    overwhelmed with the task of setting and managing controls
    across countless apps, games, websites, and social media
    platforms,'' unquote.
        In the meantime, Congress has taken some important steps in
    this space, passing COPPA 27 years ago and the CAMRA Act three
    years ago, which funds essential research on children's
    development and well-being. But there's still much more work to
    be done. Federal action is critical because States are now
    beginning to fill the gaps with their own online safety laws.
    Unfortunately, even the most well-intentioned laws often face
    legal challenges and create a fragmented regulatory landscape.
    A strong Federal framework would provide clarity while allowing
    States to build upon this.
        So, Congress has the opportunity to lead with balanced and
    thoughtful policies, including passing a comprehensive data
    privacy law, funding ongoing research to inform evidence-based
    policymaking, prioritizing specific targeted bills like the
    TAKE IT DOWN Act and the Kids Off Social Media Act, encouraging
    industry cooperation to simplify parental controls and online
    safety tools, rejecting blanket bans in favor of thoughtful
    restrictions that include young people's input, and,
    critically, supporting digital literacy programs to build
    resilience in young users.
        So, to conclude, let us challenge ourselves to reimagine
    what online safety can look like, not just as a range of
    restrictions, but as a foundation for resilience, confidence,
    and opportunity.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Balkam appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you all for your testimony. We'll
    have 5-minute round of questions. I'm going to start with Mr.
    Pizzuro.
        AI has opened up new possibilities for bad actors to
    generate novel forms of CSAM. In fact, one recent report found
    that over 3,500 AI-generated CSAM images were posted in a
    single dark web forum over a 9-month period. Could you explain
    the challenge that AI-generated CSAM poses for law enforcement
    and tech companies?
        Mr. Pizzuro. Well, there's a couple of things. One, right
    now, it's going to be hard to tell the difference, especially
    without forensic software, what is AI and what isn't. Second, I
    could just take my phone now, take a picture of a Senator, and
    then I can age regress them. For example, I can--you can be a
    40-year-old male. I can now make you a 21-year-old female, and
    now I can make you a 10-year-old girl. And with that, and AI
    within these apps, I can actually then nudify those apps. So I
    think the challenge that comes with this and AI, especially
    from sextortion, I don't even need to groom someone right now.
    I can just get an image off the clear web in order to do that.
    So that's going to be the complexity, and the challenge is
    going to be is, how do we determine who is a real victim and
    who's not--in a lot of instances.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you.
        Professor Leary, 230--well, first of all, I heard your five
    points, so I'm not asking you to repeat any of them, but how
    would you advise reforming Section 230 in light of the current
    online ecosystem?
        Professor Leary. Thank you, Senator. Well, first, as I say,
    when we talk about Section 230 and the provisions that Tech
    points to, there's this, as this Committee well knows, (c)(1)
    and (c)(2)--(c)(2) is the Good Samaritan provision, and I would
    recommend that that stay in place. That incentivizes a platform
    to be able to remove harmful material from their platforms
    without being sued.
        The (c)(1) part of the statute should be removed. As has
    been pointed by so many of you in your opening statements, it
    serves no purpose, if it ever did. Now, a myth has been created
    about it, that it somehow created the internet, and somehow the
    internet will break without it. And that's just simply not
    true. And if it ever was true, this is no longer a fledgling
    business that needs that kind of support. Instead, it needs to
    be treated like every other business.
        Another important thing I would encourage the Senate to do
    with Section 230 is to listen to the National Association of
    Attorneys General who repeatedly has written and asked Congress
    to include in it the ability for them to enforce their State
    laws, which has also been ruled to be something that they
    cannot do when these courts--when Tech has argued for an
    expansive interpretation of Section 230. In my mind, that is
    another courthouse door that is closed. It's a States' rights
    issue. And the entire architecture of combating exploitation of
    our children is--involves prosecution, protection, and
    prevention, and within that involves multiple pressure points,
    including civil litigation, State prosecution, and Federal
    prosecution. And that, I think, would be an important
    amendment.
        Chairman Grassley. Mr. Pizzuro, obviously, it has taken a
    long time, and maybe it will take a longer time for Section 230
    to be reformed, and also putting some more things in that can
    slow the process up. Beyond that reform and liability for Big
    Tech, what steps could companies take to protect children
    online today?
        Mr. Pizzuro. Well, one of the things that they know is they
    know--for example, I had mentioned in my testimony, Discord,
    they notify users. They notify users when they get legal
    process. You know, those are certain internal policies. They
    know what IP addresses that there are because if I get banned,
    I just create a new username. So those are associated IP
    addresses. There's also IP addresses, you know, beyond the
    scopes of the U.S. where children are targeted here. So these
    are things that the companies actually know and can do
    something.
        Chairman Grassley. Professor Leary, the bills reported out
    of Committee last year that would impose liability on a
    platform for knowingly promoting CSAM and others for recklessly
    promoting CSAM, as we continue workshopping bills in this
    Committee, do you believe we should pursue a recklessness
    standard or a knowing standard and the pros and cons?
        Professor Leary. Thank you. I absolutely believe a
    recklessness standard is superior to a knowing standard. And
    again, you know, the--Senator Durbin referred to the red
    herrings. One red herring that's out there is recklessness is
    some very low standard that will somehow expose these
    businesses to an onslaught of litigation. A couple of comments
    on that. First, most businesses function having to act
    responsibly, and they face often a negligence standard.
        Anybody who says that recklessness is an easy standard to
    make, I invite you, please, come to my criminal law class and
    meet my criminal law students who will be able to tell you the
    definition of recklessness, and they will tell you that it is
    challenging. And, specifically, it is a conscious disregard of
    not just a risk, a substantial and unjustifiable risk. That is
    the definition of recklessness in the criminal context, and it
    can be used in other contexts, as well.
        That requires not just an objective measure, but a level of
    subjectivity. It's referred to sometimes as risk creation. So
    that kind of standard is hardly a day in the park for
    litigants. It is still quite challenging, and that's why it is
    a far better standard than knowingly, in my opinion.
        Chairman Grassley. Okay. Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Representative Guffey, thank you for coming
    back. I'm sorry for the circumstances which bring you, but it
    shows real courage, and I know your family and friends have
    joined you----
        Representative Guffey. Thank you.
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. In coming here today. I recall
    the first time we met after a hearing a year or so ago before
    this Committee, so thank you very much.
        Representative Guffey. Thank you.
        Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, was it a week or 2 weeks ago
    we had a hearing on fentanyl?
        Chairman Grassley. Yes.
        Senator Durbin. Yes.
        Chairman Grassley. Last week.
        Senator Durbin. And we had another parent of a victim who
    ordered what he thought was a Percocet, turned out to be laced
    with fentanyl, and took his life. So this is a life-or-death
    proposition that we're dealing with here, and you've lived it--
    and living it still. I think we ought to keep it in that
    context.
        Professor Leary, I am struck by one of your statements that
    you've given to the Committee, that this notion that we are
    preparing 230 as an immunity as opposed to a defense precludes
    evidence being gathered and discovery taking place. And you say
    in your remarks to the Committee that that diminishes our
    knowledge of the actual goings-on at these tech companies and
    what they're doing and gathering. I recall what Representative
    Guffey said in his opening remarks, ``This is bigger than Big
    Tobacco.''
        I know that issue. Over 30 years ago in the House, I
    introduced a little bill to ban smoking on airplanes. It passed
    because Congress is the biggest frequent flyer club in the
    world, and we were sick of it. And it triggered a conversation
    and a discovery process, and AGs from across the country
    gathered together and did something significant with this
    industry.
        So I'd like you to expound a bit, if you will, as to how
    this standard precludes our knowledge of what's actually going
    on in Big Tech in their response to this challenge. I think
    that the gathering of that information for the tobacco
    companies, the demonstration of their lying to the public about
    the safety of their product, for example, really led to their
    downfall. I think the same could be true here.
        Professor Leary. Thank you, Senator. I think that you are
    100 percent correct on that. When a defendant has a defense, as
    many--as I know the Committee knows, but to be responsive to
    the question, there's a period of discovery beforehand where--
    --
        Senator Durbin. Like contributary negligence.
        Professor Leary. Exactly, exactly, or things of that
    nature. There's a period of discovery where the plaintiffs
    can--who've made a good faith claim can get information to
    build on their case, and the defendants can also provide
    information which may exculpate them.
        The way that Section 230 has been interpreted, it is an
    immunity. And so prior to discovery is when these platforms are
    coming into court and saying, ``Judge, we don't have to defend
    ourselves. We don't even have to litigate this case. You should
    dismiss it now,'' motions to dismiss prior to discovery. The
    only way that I would say the public has learned a lot of the
    information about Big Tech, for example, that I believe led to
    KOSA and some of the other duty of care, has been through what?
    Congressional investigations. I'm reminded of the Backpage, a
    congressional investigation, which was a 2-year investigation--
    or whistleblowers and hearings. That's how we are learning this
    information. And only by getting this information can we then
    make informed choices about what's the appropriate legislative
    text.
        If I could just say quickly, Justice Thomas commented on
    this, and he has underscored this when he said, look, let's
    keep in mind, if we fix Section 230--that's not exactly what he
    said, but after that he said, quote, ``It would simply give
    plaintiffs a chance to raise their claims in the first place.
    Plaintiffs must still prove the merits of their case and some
    claims will undoubtedly fail. But States and the Federal
    Government will be able to update their liability laws to be
    more appropriate for an internet-driven society.''
        Senator Durbin. If I can make one final point in the
    closing seconds here, going back to my analogy, smoking on
    airplanes and ultimately dealing with the tobacco issue in a
    much larger context, the initial bill that I introduced and
    passed in the House banned smoking on airplanes on flights of 2
    hours or less.
        People said, what are you talking about? If it's dangerous,
    it's dangerous regardless of the duration of the flight. The
    reason was, I had a Minnesota Congressman who was a chain
    smoker who was holding up my bill----
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. And I went to him, he's----
        Senator Klobuchar. It's so timely that I arrived.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. I went to him and I said,
    ``Marty, how long can you go without a cigarette? '' And he
    said, ``Two hours.'' So I put that in the bill, and he didn't
    object to it, and it moved forward. There are things that we're
    dealing with in some of these bills, which are compromises to
    try to move the issue forward, to make progress toward our
    goal. So don't assume that any language is final. It is all in
    flux and subject to negotiation. But thank you for joining us.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Lee.
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I'd like to
    thank all the witnesses for being here and for testifying on
    this important issue. These are not easy issues to talk about
    and not easy in particular because of the tragic circumstances
    that have regrettably brought you here.
        Representative Guffey, I want to express my sympathy to you
    for the loss of your son, Gavin. No parent should ever have to
    go through that, and I want to commend you on your courage and
    the strength that you've shown as you continue to fight to
    protect all children.
        Representative Guffey. Thank you.
        Senator Lee. And, Ms. Goldberg, with what you've gone
    through, likewise, my heart goes out to you and to anyone else
    who has experienced the things that you're describing.
        For the past several years, I've strongly advocated for
    reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. And
    this is due to increasing concerns about how social media
    platforms are operating and how they're utilizing Section 230.
    The platforms have enabled child sexual exploitation and
    promoted harmful challenges to children and facilitated drug
    trafficking--in many cases to minors.
        Now, first, I introduced the PROTECT Act on this point,
    which mandates stricter safeguards on websites hosting
    pornographic content. Victims of online exploitation have faced
    an uphill battle for years, struggling to get online platforms
    to remove images that were nonconsensually obtained. The bill
    would require platforms to verify the age and also obtain
    verified consent forms from individuals uploading and appearing
    in content. And the bill would require tech companies to take
    stronger measures to prevent the exploitation occurring on
    their platforms and force immediate removal of child sexually
    explicit material and revenge porn upon receiving notice that
    the content in question was uploaded without the legally
    required consent.
        Second, I introduced another bill as a complement to the
    PROTECT Act called the SCREEN Act. The SCREEN Act would require
    all commercial pornographic websites to adopt age-verification
    technology to ensure children can't access the site's
    pornographic content.
        In the 20 years since the Supreme Court last examined this
    issue in earnest, technological advances have demonstrated that
    prior methods of restricting minors' access to pornography
    online were ineffective. Nearly 80 percent of teenagers between
    the ages of 12 and 17 have been exposed to pornography. This is
    especially alarming, given the unique physiological effects
    that pornography has on minors--effects that are much better
    understood and to a much more alarming degree today than they
    were 20 years ago.
        Finally, I introduced a third bill called the App Store
    Accountability Act, which would prevent underage users from
    downloading apps with pornography, extreme violence, and other
    harmful content, while making it easier for parents to sue the
    gatekeepers of the content in question. Technology has advanced
    significantly over the last two decades. Modern age
    verification technology is now the least restrictive, least
    intrusive, and most effective means to which Congress has ready
    access to protect our children from exposure to online
    pornography.
        Ms. Goldberg, if it's okay, I'd like to start with you. In
    your view, should app stores such as the Google Play Store and
    Apple's App Store be held legally accountable for allowing
    minors access to harmful content?
        Ms. Goldberg. A hundred percent, app stores should have a
    duty. They are just a seller in this situation, and as we've
    said in our cases against Amazon, there's standards of seller
    negligence. So if you know that you are selling an unreasonably
    dangerous product, then there's liability.
        Senator Lee. Liability. Liability that's in there would be
    if you sold a tangible physical object unsuitable for minors to
    someone with knowledge or reckless disregard for their age.
        Professor Leary, do you believe requiring pornographic
    websites to adopt age verification technology for visitors and
    for all people featured on those websites in pornographic
    images, while imposing serious consequences for uploading and
    hosting nonconsensual pornographic content, do you think these
    are things that would help children?
        Professor Leary. I do think age verification--obviously
    with any piece of legislation, the words matter, but the idea
    of anything that will create friction between children and
    their exposure to pornography is an important thing, and age
    verification can be one of them.
        I think the danger here is to suggest--not to suggest. The
    danger here is what I see is tech directing things away from
    them, often right as there's the solution--when we have to have
    a multi-tiered, multi-level approach. And that's why a
    combination of all of the Acts you've talked about--the SHIELD
    Act, the DEFIANCE Act, the TAKE DOWN--TAKE IT DOWN Act, the NO
    FAKES Act--all together really provide much more protection
    than one or two approaches.
        Senator Lee. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Klobuchar.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you, Grassley.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Klobuchar. It is wonderful to be here and to hear
    your incredible testimony. I got through three of you, I think,
    and I first want to lead with you, Representative Guffey.
    Watching your family behind you and friends, how difficult this
    must be and how heartfelt your testimony was. I don't know how
    anyone can listen to you and not want to get something done
    here. So I want to thank you for that.
        You've described how victims of these crimes often suffer
    from mental health trauma. Can you quickly elaborate on why
    even the threat of the nonconsensual distribution of explicit
    images can be tragic?
        Representative Guffey. The threat is the most dangerous
    part of it. Not even the sharing of the images themselves are
    as bad of the threat because you are taking your deepest,
    darkest shame, or your most private moment, and the threat of
    sending it out to complete strangers is complete vulnerability.
    And I believe that in this country, we've lost grace, and we
    have too often kicked people for the mistakes that they make.
    And we tell our kids that everything you do online will stay
    with you forever. Well, imagine if you just took your darkest
    moment and just posted it online.
        Senator Klobuchar. Mm-hmm. Exactly. Federal--why should
    this be Federal?
        Representative Guffey. Well, on a State level, I can tell
    you from passing--or submitting legislation, passing
    legislation, I have submitted things such as the PROTECT Act,
    the App Store Accountability Act. You know, we need help on a
    Federal level because Section 230 is causing States to go at
    this 20 different directions.
        Senator Klobuchar. Totally.
        Representative Guffey. And until--if 230 isn't going to fix
    it, and the States are fed up on how ineffective Congress has
    been, we're going to continue to try to go at it any and every
    way we can. But it would be a whole lot nicer to have uniform
    code across the country instead of just protecting children in
    one State.
        Senator Klobuchar. Yes, like you might do with the airplane
    seat rules that I just brought up.
        Representative Guffey. Yes.
        Senator Klobuchar. You don't have those State by State.
    That would be very difficult----
        Representative Guffey. Yes.
        Senator Klobuchar [continuing]. To get any results.
        Mr. Pizzuro, could you talk about why it's important that
    Congress pass these bills to give Federal law enforcement
    tools? As you know, Senator Cornyn and I have this SHIELD Act,
    which is really important, ahead of its time. And then the TAKE
    IT DOWN Act requires the platforms to take these down
    immediately, the nonconsensual images, but also make sure that
    there is criminal liability for those that are posting it.
    Could you talk about why that helps Federal law enforcement?
        Mr. Pizzuro. Sure. The challenge becomes in investigating
    with--between State and Federal, there's a lot of gaps. So, as
    an investigator, there's areas where I can't successfully
    prosecute or have the actual law and order to facilitate
    things. So especially if you go to rural areas where there's
    not a State perspective, where there's not really good laws,
    not--you're going to need that Federal law and that aspect. So
    what SHIELD does, it fills that legislative gap----
        Senator Klobuchar. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. Pizzuro [continuing]. In order for us to actually
    effectually do our jobs.
        Senator Klobuchar. Mm-hmm. Good point. And another question
    on the fentanyl and the drug track. The DEA recently found that
    one-third of fentanyl cases they investigated had direct ties
    to social media. Others, like the National Crime Prevention
    Council, estimate that 80 percent of teen and young adult
    fentanyl poisoning deaths can be tracked back to social media.
    It's not a statistic. It's actual lives lost. How do the design
    of an algorithmic recommendation by online platforms contribute
    to the facilitation of drug sales?
        Mr. Pizzuro. Well, I could tell you this, even going back
    when I first started, not aging myself, but, you know, when
    there was cloned pagers and we were doing cartels--this is just
    the advent of technology. And with these tech companies and the
    AI algorithms, what they push, that's what they're going to
    see, so it doesn't matter. There is no--you know, one of the
    things--I asked Meta, I asked Snap, I asked a lot of these
    companies, ``Can you explain your algorithms? '' No one can and
    no one will because, again, it's about business. It's about
    pushing that content, and that's what children are seeing. So
    that's why they're at risk.
        Senator Klobuchar. Mm-hmm. Thank you. My last question of
    you, Ms. Goldberg, you have represented over 1,000 victims of
    revenge porn, just to give people a sense of those numbers. Of
    course, there's tens of thousands out there that never were
    represented. Can you discuss the challenges you face in getting
    justice for your clients and why passage of Federal laws like
    the SHIELD Act and the TAKE IT DOWN Act would make a
    difference?
        Ms. Goldberg. Sure. When I started representing victims of
    revenge porn 10 years ago, there were three States that had
    laws. And everyone wanted to blame the victims and said, ``You
    shouldn't have taken that picture in the first place.'' And it
    wasn't until we were testifying about it and, like, actually
    making people realize that the liability needs to be, like, in
    the hands of the offenders. There's a responsibility in being
    the recipient of it.
        But the bigger problem, though, was that the platforms were
    the ones that were distributing the content at scale. So, you
    know, back in the old days, revenge porn could be, you know,
    photocopied and put on a car windshield. But now with Snapchat
    and Google and Meta, one picture can be seen by millions and
    millions of people, and we need the uniformity like Mr. Pizzuro
    was saying.
        Senator Klobuchar. Mm-hmm. Thank you. And I know my
    colleagues asked about Section 230, which I feel very strongly
    about, so I'll let that go. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Klobuchar, thank you. Senator--
    --
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you, Chairman Grassley.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Hawley.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    calling this hearing. Thanks to the witnesses for being here.
        Mr. Pizzuro, let me just start with you. You've been
    working in the anti-exploitation space for a long time, both
    inside and outside government. Have I got that right?
        Mr. Pizzuro. That's correct.
        Senator Hawley. And so you know the trends about what we're
    facing online, what kids are facing online, probably as well or
    better than anybody. Is that fair to say?
        Mr. Pizzuro. I would say pretty so.
        Senator Hawley. Would you say that that CSAM--Child Sexual
    Exploitation--or Abuse Material, would you say that there's
    getting to be more of it or getting to be less of it?
        Mr. Pizzuro. Oh, a hundred percent more, like hundreds and
    thousands more. I mean, I can't even percentage it.
        Senator Hawley. Yes, enormous amounts. Right?
        Mr. Pizzuro. Yes.
        Senator Hawley. Here's a measure of it----
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Hawley [continuing]. In 2023, there were 104
    million images and videos of suspected child abuse material
    uploaded onto the internet compared to 450,000 in 2004. So
    450,000 in 2004 to 104 million in the last full year for which
    we have data.
        Here's another statistic. According to the National Center
    for Missing & Exploited Children, the number of reports of
    child exploitation material went from 1 million in 2014 to 36.2
    million in 2023.
        Mr. Pizzuro. That's right.
        Senator Hawley. So, in other words, it's just an enormous
    explosion. It's absolutely everywhere.
        So let me ask you about some of the remedies for this. If
    you are a parent--and I'm the parent of three young children,
    three little kids. If you're a parent of a victim of child
    sexual abuse material and your child's image has been used,
    they've been exploited, it's been used online, and you've got
    companies who have hosted that content recklessly or
    intentionally or negligently, or--they've done it. If you're a
    parent, can I sue them and get them to take it down?
        Mr. Pizzuro. Right now, no. You can sue them, but I don't
    know how successful you're going to be.
        Senator Hawley. So if I went into court, if my kid is
    abused, their content is up online, we know the abuser, but
    we've got these companies that are hosting the content and
    making money on it by distributing it, and I go to the company,
    let's say I go to the company and I say, ``This sexual abuse
    material--this is my kid. This is online. I'm reporting it to
    you. I want you to take it down.'' Let's say they don't take it
    down, you're telling me I can't go into court and sue them?
        Mr. Pizzuro. Other--you're going to probably end up losing.
    I mean--and I think that's part of the problem.
        Senator Hawley. It's a huge problem. Is it not?
        Mr. Pizzuro. Yes.
        Senator Hawley. You're exactly correct.
        Mr. Pizzuro. Yes.
        Senator Hawley. You're exactly correct. The state of the
    law is I cannot go into court and hold these companies
    accountable. In fact, we had testimony just a few weeks ago of
    somebody sitting right where you're sitting, a parent whose
    child was sold drugs, in this case over one of these
    platforms--over Snapchat. This parent went in, reported it to
    Snapchat. Snapchat said, ``Oh, well, we'll do our best.'' They
    did nothing. The parent said, ``I'm going to sue you,'' and the
    Snapchat executives laughed in her face and they said, ``Oh,
    no, you're not. You're not going to sue us because Federal law
    prohibits you from suing us.''
        Let me just ask you this. In 2019, Facebook was fined by
    the FTC $5 billion--$5 billion--with a B, and their stock price
    went up. Now, what does that tell you about what these
    companies fear? Do you think they fear these Government
    regulatory agencies that almost never bring suits and almost
    never bring enforcement?
        Mr. Pizzuro. Oh, absolutely not.
        Senator Hawley. Do you think that they fear lawsuits from
    parents who might get into court and get a $1 billion or a $10
    billion judgment?
        Mr. Pizzuro. For them, it's the cost of doing business.
    Right?
        Senator Hawley. Yes, exactly. And they're willing to pay
    it. Facebook paid that $5 billion. Their stock price went up.
    They went right on doing what they were doing. But I tell you
    what they do fear, what they're absolutely terrified is,
    they're absolutely terrified of a parent coming into court and
    getting in front of a jury and holding them accountable. And
    that is why it is high time--it is past time that this Congress
    gave parents the ability to do that.
        And I will just say, again, for the approximately three
    millionth time in this Committee, until Congress gives parents
    the ability to sue, nothing will change. These companies don't
    care about fines. They don't care about the regulations. In
    fact, the companies regularly come and sit here and offer to
    write the regulations. They say, ``Oh, we're great public
    citizens. We'd love to help you write the regulations,
    Congress, and we promise to comply. We'll write them, and then
    we'll comply.'' They won't comply. They buy off the regulators.
    What they fear are juries.
        And this is why what Senator Durbin has done with his bill
    that we worked on together to give parents the right to get
    into court and have their day in court is absolutely vital. And
    I'm proud to be working with him on this. It passed unanimously
    out of this Committee last year when he was the Chairman, and I
    look forward to reintroducing it. We make it even stronger,
    even better this year. But I just say, again, there is nothing
    more important that this Congress can do to stop this than to
    give parents the right and victims the right to get into court
    and to hold these companies accountable.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Lee [presiding]. Thank you. Senator Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
    testifying. And, Representative Guffey, our hearts go out to
    you.
        We have been here many times already. Yes, I agree that we
    have to do something about Section 230, but one of the things
    that Professor Leary mentioned--and before I get to that, by
    the way, enforcement is really important, and I just want to
    note that last week when I was questioning Mr. Blanche, who is
    President Trump's nominee for Deputy Attorney General, I noted
    that protecting children online is an issue that unifies the
    Members of this Committee, as you can see.
        That is why I was disappointed--in his non-answer to one of
    my questions I explained that if we want to protect children,
    the last thing we should do is fire prosecutors who fight child
    exploitation and impose a hiring freeze that stops them from
    filling these vacancies. But that's exactly what's happening.
    So I think we should note the environment in which we are
    having this hearing. Moreover, there was a funding freeze
    briefly that cutoff funding to Internet Crimes Against Children
    Task Forces that fight child exploitation in every State.
        So child exploitation is a multifaceted issue, and I want
    to get back to Professor Leary, who said that the States ought
    to have the right to go after child exploitation in court and
    that they are not able to do so because of Section 230. Does
    that cover both criminal as well as civil prosecutions by
    States?
        Professor Leary. It has been interpreted that way. The
    States--and the way it's been interpreted is there's language
    in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which talks
    about that no State--not supporting a State law that is in
    contravention with Section 230 of the Communications Decency
    Act.
        So courts have interpreted that as, oh, that means you
    can't enforce your State criminal laws, which happened in the
    Dart case--which was an attempt in the Dart cases, and I assume
    it would happen in civil cases under the (c)(1) provisions of
    the statute.
        Senator Hirono. Well, so you would support legislation at
    the Federal level that would allow the States to enforce their
    own child protection laws?
        Professor Leary. One hundred percent. And I believe that my
    written testimony has a quote from the letters from the
    national attorneys general laying out, again, for the third
    time--and, again, speaking of unanimity, I believe there's--I
    don't know exactly how you can have over 50 attorneys general.
    I believe it's the territories as well--all in agreement on
    this point.
        Senator Hirono. And, Representative Guffey and Ms.
    Goldberg, you would agree that we need to do something that
    would enable the States to support their own laws?
        Representative Guffey. I would certainly agree with that. I
    think that's one of the tools in the toolbelt. But yes, States
    need to be able to have the tools.
        Senator Hirono. For Ms. Goldberg, you noted very briefly
    the ninth circuit and their decision in a case that you were
    involved with. Could you provide some background on the case
    and how Section 230 was involved and what you think that this
    case demonstrates the state of the law around Section 230?
        Ms. Goldberg. Yes. So that case is called Doe v. Grindr,
    and it accuses the dating app Grindr of advertising to children
    using Instagram and TikTok with child models in school settings
    and luring them onto the dating app. And, as I said in my
    complaint, there were--there's statistics that 50 percent of
    gay kids have--who are sexually active have their first sexual
    experience with an adult that they meet on Grindr.
        Now, Grindr has no age verifications and just absolutely
    turns a blind eye to the fact----
        Senator Hirono. Mm-hmm.
        Ms. Goldberg [continuing]. That there are so many kids that
    use their product and inevitably are recommended to adults.
        Now, I claimed that this was a defective product, and
    Grindr, because they knew about the problem, as I stated in my
    lawsuit, and were not--and were refusing to institute any sort
    of age verifications, they were also condoning trafficking. And
    the case got thrown out by the district court, and that was
    affirmed yesterday by the ninth circuit. So I never got----
        Senator Hirono. So----
        Ms. Goldberg [continuing]. To go to discovery.
        Senator Hirono [continuing]. It was thrown out because of
    Section 230 immunity?
        Ms. Goldberg. Of Section 230 and because of the incredibly
    high knowledge standard of actual knowledge that was--that they
    were imposing, which they didn't have to impose, but they
    imposed in the trafficking claim.
        Senator Hirono. I support the general proposition--thank
    you, Mr. Chairman--that anyone who gets injured by someone
    else's actions ought to be able to pursue legal remedies.
    Therefore, you know, I agree that we need to remove Section 230
    immunity somehow and still pay attention to various other
    unintended consequences that may flow from that kind of a
    change, but it's not where we ought to be because this is a
    growing problem.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Kennedy [presiding]. Thank you, Senator. I believe
    I'm next.
        Representative, I'm sorry. But your boy's proud of you.
    You're doing good work.
        Representative Guffey. Thank you.
        Senator Kennedy. Now, my late father used to tell me that
    you'll never know love until you know the love of a child. And
    I didn't believe him, but I do now. I don't know what I'd do if
    something happened to my boy. I'm just so sorry.
        Representative Guffey. Thank you so much.
        Senator Kennedy. Mr. Pizzuro?
        Mr. Pizzuro. Sir?
        Senator Kennedy. Social media is now a big part of
    childhood. Isn't it?
        Mr. Pizzuro. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. Can we agree that big parts of social
    media have just become cesspools of snark?
        Mr. Pizzuro. I can probably attest to that, yes.
        Senator Kennedy. Can we agree that social media has lowered
    the cost of being an a-hole?
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Pizzuro. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. Can we agree that big parts of social
    media have become cesspools of sexual exploitation?
        Mr. Pizzuro. For sure.
        Senator Kennedy. And I assume you'd agree with me if I said
    that social media has lowered the cost of being a pedophile.
    Hasn't it?
        Mr. Pizzuro. Absolutely. It made it easy access.
        Senator Kennedy. Yes. You're familiar with the National
    Center for Missing & Exploited Children's Cyber Tip Line?
        Mr. Pizzuro. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. Are the social media companies required to
    report instances of child sexual exploitation to the National
    Center?
        Mr. Pizzuro. Of what they see.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. So the law says the social media
    companies have got to report these instances of sexual
    exploitation to the National Center. First, they have to look.
    Don't they?
        Mr. Pizzuro. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. Do they make any money when they look?
        Mr. Pizzuro. No. If you just look at the Apple statistics I
    gave before, out of, what, 36 million, there's 275 came from
    Apple, so----
        Senator Kennedy. But they're not paid to look?
        Mr. Pizzuro. No.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. In fact, they want people coming to
    their social media platform?
        Mr. Pizzuro. More users, more money.
        Senator Kennedy. Yes. They want eyeballs so they can sell
    them advertising. So for them to look is inconsistent with
    their economic interest. Isn't it?
        Mr. Pizzuro. Correct.
        Senator Kennedy. All right. Now, once they look and they
    find it, then they have to report it to the National Center. Is
    that right?
        Mr. Pizzuro. That's correct.
        Senator Kennedy. Are they paid to report it to the National
    Center?
        Mr. Pizzuro. Absolutely not.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. How many instances--I know this is a
    difficult question. How many instances do you think are of
    sexual exploitation of children are occurring and not being
    either looked for and/or reported by the social media
    companies?
        Mr. Pizzuro. Well, I don't have NCMEC statistics but I
    could tell you that most of--there's a lot of ESPs that don't
    actually even report. So some overreport, some don't report at
    all. So that's part of the challenge.
        And then, secondary, it's voluntary, right, so whatever----
        Senator Kennedy. Right.
        Mr. Pizzuro [continuing]. They give them, there's no
    uniformity in data as well.
        Senator Kennedy. Yes. What happens if they don't look and
    they--and/or they don't report? Are they punished?
        Mr. Pizzuro. No.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. You're familiar with the Safer
    program?
        Mr. Pizzuro. A little bit.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. It's a tool. They use AI to scan
    conversations and look for patterns that might be sexual
    exploitation of children. It's not the only algorithm out
    there. Do social media programs all use that?
        Mr. Pizzuro. I don't know how many do, but--I don't know if
    they're using technology, but they should.
        Senator Kennedy. Are they required to use it?
        Mr. Pizzuro. Nope.
        Senator Kennedy. We've got to do something.
        This is my last question. Do you find it ironic that all of
    these people in Big Tech who dreamed about and talked about
    creating a utopia have managed to generate more hate and more
    harm than anyone could ever have possibly imagined, all to make
    money?
        Mr. Pizzuro. And lots of money they made.
        Senator Kennedy. Do you find that ironic?
        Mr. Pizzuro. Very.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you all for being here.
        Senator Blumenthal--he's not only next, he's the only one
    left. But it's nice to see him.
        Senator Blumenthal. Am I recognized, Mr. Chairman--Mr.
    Ranking Member or are you presiding?
        Senator Kennedy. I'm the Chairman.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Blumenthal. You're presiding?
        Senator Kennedy. I'm the Chairman, Blumenthal.
        Senator Blumenthal. That may be the reason I'm the only one
    left.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Kennedy. Could be. I'm looking forward to your
    questioning. And I'm going to turn the gavel over to Senator
    Blackburn.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn.
        Representative Guffey, thank you for being here today, and
    I think our hearts go out to you. I know I'm not the first to
    have said it, but your courage and strength makes an enormous
    difference. I know how strongly you supported the Kids Online
    Safety Act, and I am deeply grateful to you for your support
    and your activism in going to Louisiana, for example, seeking
    to talk to Representative Scalise and Representative--Speaker
    Johnson on behalf of that bill.
        You did an article that I would like to have entered into
    the record if there's no objection. And there seems to be none.
        When you went to see Representatives Scalise and Johnson,
    were you given an opportunity to talk to them?
        Representative Guffey. No, sir--myself or the other
    parents. We did meet with Representative Scalise's staff,
    which, of course, was in district at that time, but even coming
    up here to the Hill, unable to meet with either one of the
    Representatives.
        Senator Blumenthal. Would you like to meet with them?
        Representative Guffey. I would love to.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, we'll try to arrange it for you.
        Representative Guffey. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Blumenthal. I'm hoping they'll hear from you. I'm
    hoping they'll support the bill this time. Do you agree?
        Representative Guffey. I 1,000 percent agree.
        Senator Blumenthal. Why don't you tell us, as a parent--but
    also as a advocate and the author of that article, why you
    think some of the arguments made against KOSA based on a
    supposed free speech thesis are incorrect?
        Representative Guffey. I believe it is all ``follow the
    money.'' If you look at Big Tech and their lobby and you look
    at the narratives that get put out there and you look at the
    Representatives that fight against it and you follow the money
    and where it ends up, I believe that that fear--and, as an
    elected official, you know, I see it myself. You're often
    worried about what this will look like.
        And that's one of the reasons, whenever I was presenting, I
    used the phrase that we have too many politicians worried about
    their next election instead of leaders worried about the next
    generation. And I believe that it's a false narrative that has
    been put out there. The argument has been had over and over,
    and people will agree with you, and then they will turn right
    around and share a false narrative.
        Senator Blumenthal. I think the United States Senate has
    recognized that it's a false narrative through a strong
    bipartisan vote here, 91-to-3 in the last session. I'm hoping
    that we'll have that same kind of support again. And I thank my
    Republican colleagues, particularly Senator Blackburn, who has
    been such a steadfast partner in this effort.
        I'd like to turn to Professor Leary. I think I
    misattributed the article to Representative Guffey, but maybe
    you can expand on his response on that free speech false
    narrative.
        Professor Leary. Sure. Thank you, Senator. So first thing
    about free speech--well, first, as you know, I believe the
    article you're referring to, the op-ed, myself and other
    scholars wrote this piece, and it really dispelled these
    arguments about KOSA and really that we see again. In fact, if
    you look back in history, it's interesting to look at what some
    of tech has said over the years. I can go back to 2014, they
    are making this argument. We can go back actually before that,
    to 1996. They told us the Communications Decency Act was going
    to ruin free speech. Then they said it about the SAVE Act, then
    they said it about SESTA, FOSTA and, lo and behold, we still
    have plenty of free speech.
        The thing to keep in mind with free speech is--the First
    Amendment is--that is an Amendment designed to help inform us
    on how to handle these sticky issues. It is not a reason to not
    engage in legislation, and that--it's being used in that
    manner. There's a distinction between speech and conduct. And
    specifically with KOSA, KOSA addressed conduct, not content.
    And so the speech argument was particularly misplaced with
    regard to that piece of legislation.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. In fact, KOSA affects the
    conduct involved in product design. There's no more limitation
    on free speech than there would be if and when--because it
    does--the Federal Government regulates the safety of the design
    of an automobile or a toaster or a washing machine. If they
    explode, there is liability for it. It's not free speech to
    design a defective and harmful product. It's conduct. And there
    is no censorship, no blocking of content in KOSA.
        Thank you all for your testimony today. Thank you, Madam
    Chair.
        Senator Blackburn [presiding]. I thank you. And, Professor
    Leary, I'm going to stay right with you for my question. I
    appreciated so much that op-ed that you had put together and
    the difference that you're making there that it was not a free
    speech infringement. This is, as Senator Blumenthal said,
    product design, as you said, conduct. But we know the reason
    that Meta and Google and the groups lobbied--just millions of
    dollars spent lobbying against this--is because they have
    assigned a dollar value to each and every kid. And I think the
    dollar value is $270. And so our kids are the product, and it
    is so unseemly. To me, it is absolutely disgusting that they
    devalue the lives of young people in this manner.
        Mr. Pizzuro, I want to come to you. Senator Klobuchar and I
    have the National Human Trafficking Database Act which would
    establish a database at DOJ's Office for Victims of Crimes and
    incentivizes States to collect and to enter and share their
    data. What we're trying to do is get a full picture of what is
    happening in each of the 50 States when it comes to human
    trafficking. And we have really had a tough time doing this and
    finding those people that are behind these human trafficking
    rings. I know your organization, Raven----
        Mr. Pizzuro. Yes.
        Senator Blackburn [continuing]. Has been supportive of the
    bill.
        Mr. Pizzuro. Yes.
        Senator Blackburn. I'd like for you to talk for just a
    minute about why having a national database is so vitally
    important to breaking this modern-day slavery apart.
        Mr. Pizzuro. Well, the more data we have, the more we're
    able to understand and see and react to. And I think that's
    part of the challenge is, that, as States, we're so
    fragmentized, so we're getting data from just certain areas. So
    the more data we're able to actually collect, the more likely
    we are able to put a comprehensive plan and understand how to
    go after, you know, certain trafficking.
        Senator Blackburn. And I want you to touch for just a
    moment on the use of AI-generated CSAM because what we hear
    from law enforcement is they're having to sift through so many
    images to figure out what is AI-generated and what is actual.
        Mr. Pizzuro. That's a challenge. So right now, you can't--a
    detective investigating something--I can't tell the difference
    between what a real image is and what is not a real image. So
    technology exists now I can make those images whoever I want. I
    can make a child from an adult. And the challenge really
    becomes is now I could take your images off the clear net, off
    of social media, off of open profiles, and then turn that
    person into a child or, better yet, have sexually explicit
    images. The challenge is going to be we can't see it unless we
    have the software capabilities in order to actually do that--
    which, again, we don't have.
        Senator Blackburn. I appreciate that. And Senators Coons,
    Klobuchar, Tillis, and I introduced the NO FAKES Act to deal
    with AI-generated voice and visual likeness of individuals. And
    we think that this will play an important role in a remedy for
    AI-generated CSAM.
        Representative Guffey, I'd love to get your thoughts on
    that.
        Representative Guffey. On the NO FAKES Act, I personally
    love it. I've actually resubmitted the use of a bill very
    similar within the State. But I love the idea of using the
    name, image, and likeness. I think that is a very easy thing to
    hit. And as we talk about using AI-generated pornography, one
    of the problems that we have is stating that this is not a real
    person, therefore, is it really a crime? Bills such as Name,
    Image, and Likeness protects our citizens as opposed to
    focusing solely on what the image is. It protects the citizens.
        Senator Blackburn. Let me ask you this--and congratulations
    on getting Gavin's Law passed.
        Representative Guffey. Thank you.
        Senator Blackburn. Is there a way you can amend provisions
    of NO FAKES onto Gavin's Law and begin to expand the
    protections there at the State level?
        Representative Guffey. In South Carolina, unfortunately,
    no.
        Senator Blackburn. So it's going to be two separate, so
    you'll have to have----
        Representative Guffey. Yes.
        Senator Blackburn [continuing]. A group of bills----
        Representative Guffey. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Blackburn [continuing]. That will do this. Okay.
    And I am over time. I am going to recognize Senator Schiff and
    turn the gavel to Ms. Moody.
        Senator Schiff. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for
    being here. And, Mr. Guffey, I appreciate your advocacy and
    want to express my condolence for the loss of your son. I can't
    imagine the trauma that you and your family have been through.
    But I appreciate your taking that trauma and using it to
    protect other families.
        I have not had a chance as a new Member of the Senate to
    really study the multiple approaches of the various bills,
    although some I've supported in the House. But I wanted to ask
    you, Professor, we established Section 230 for the reasons I
    think you implied, which is, it was a nascent industry. They
    urged us to do so, so that we would not stifle innovation. They
    also made the argument that, without 230, they would not
    moderate content because they would be sued if they did, and
    this would encourage them to moderate content. Well, there may
    have been a time where they moderated content, but those days
    seem to be over.
        It certainly wasn't enacted because it was believed
    necessary for the First Amendment. The First Amendment stands
    on its own two feet. In the absence of 230, companies could
    still plead a First Amendment defense to any case. What is your
    preferred approach? That is, it a repeal of 230? Is it changing
    it from an immunity to some form of defense? Is it to cabin 230
    in some way by narrowing the scope? What are the merits of the
    various approaches?
        Professor Leary. Thank you, Senator. I would say that it's
    important to--a couple of things. I would say that there was
    discussion in the deep background about this free internet
    nascent industry. And when we look at the policies and the
    findings at the beginning of Section 230 of the Communications
    Decency Act, there is language as to that. But I would repeat,
    the overwhelming background and discussion was about the child
    protection piece. And therefore, I think that the concern--I
    think that better than repealing the entire thing is to keep
    the (c)(2) language, which gives a cover, gives a protection to
    a platform if they--and specifically, if they remove anything
    they consider to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy,
    excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable,
    that will protect them. That's all they need. They do not need
    (c)(1), which is what has been turned into this de facto near
    absolute immunity.
        I think also adding the State's ability to proceed is an
    important thing. I think outside of 230 is holding them liable
    when they host this material. That has been discussed at length
    as well. So I think that those and some of the other things
    that I've listed--but I don't want to use up too much of your
    time--all work together to respond to the complex crime.
        Senator Schiff. And, Counsel, in your representation of
    clients in this area, what do you believe would be most helpful
    in terms of making sure that you can get the discovery you need
    and that we have established the right protections and the
    right burdens in terms of the platforms and the pipelines?
        Ms. Goldberg. Thank you. I agree. We are long overdue to
    just abolish Section 230. But what's important is that clients
    need to get into discovery so that they can actually know
    what--you know, the extent of the problem. And the only way we
    can do that is if the standard is reasonable for parents to
    plead. If we have to show that the company knew about that
    picture or that exact victim, that exact perpetrator, there's
    no way a client's going to be able to overcome a motion to
    dismiss and get into discovery. So we need to actually have
    standards like negligence, which the law already affords in
    almost all causes of action.
        Senator Schiff. So let me ask this question. I don't think
    there's any doubt that if a company has devoted their
    technological capability to trying to solve this problem, that
    they could make enormous gains. They wouldn't be able to
    eliminate the problem altogether, but nonetheless, they could
    prove very effective. What would you propose the new standard
    be then? That is, if it's not going to be possible to
    completely do away with this, the standard can't be perfection,
    how would you define the standard of care that you would expect
    the industry to follow, given that it hasn't had to follow any
    standard with the protections of 230?
        Senator Moody [presiding]. And if you could just quickly
    answer that.
        Ms. Goldberg. Oh, sure. Well, these are products, so strict
    liability should apply here. If these companies have created a
    defective product, then all users should be able to sue them
    without having to even prove a duty if the product injured
    them.
        Senator Schiff. Thank you.
        Senator Moody. Thank you, Senator. Appreciate you being
    here today. I have been so impressed with this Committee. I am
    a Senator all of 4 weeks, so get ready. I bring to it with an
    array of passions I have acquired, not just as an attorney
    general but as a mother of a teenager right now. And I'm so
    impressed with the topics that we have focused on, and
    specifically this one. It was shocking to me that the Senate
    was able to move forward pretty unanimously on some protections
    for children, and they ran right into the House that did not go
    along with some of those things. And I'm hoping that we can
    change that.
        As attorney general, obviously, I fought in court against
    many of the platforms. I investigated platforms for harms to
    children. I am the mother dealing with this now. In fact, I
    tell people all the time, it is really hard to be one of the
    first generations of parents trying to parent children, and we
    don't understand what we're doing because we don't understand
    the technology to the degree they do. In fact, when I'm going
    through some of the controls, I often have to ask my kid what
    that means, which seems to defeat the purpose. But here we are.
        And while I can break down what we're addressing today by
    privacy concerns of children, certainly, harm to children,
    whether that is mental effects, addiction, or materials that
    they never would have been exposed to in the past but they now
    have ready access to, one of the things I want to talk about
    quickly is the access to our children by predators and bad
    actors. I think this is this third lane that we read about
    repeatedly in the paper every single day. In my State, from
    doctors to predators to you name it, they're getting access to
    our children. And parents in the past could lock our children's
    bedroom doors and know they were safe at night, but that is not
    the reality anymore. In fact, in my own child's school, there
    were five teenage boys. A woman was arrested for posing as one
    and luring them and molesting them online I think using
    Snapchat and TikTok.
        And of course when you engage with the platforms, they will
    often deny that this is happening. But it is happening, and the
    best people that can represent that are the parents where it's
    happening to their children in their homes while they thought
    they were safe.
        And so I really commend you, as a fellow parent, Mr.
    Guffey, for taking your pain and channeling that into just
    frustration and anger because that is what is going to get the
    attention of lawmakers. I mean, we've tried to get the
    attention of the platforms. We've talked a lot about what needs
    to be done to force some restrictions and them acting on their
    own, but we need to talk about what needs to be done through
    laws. And what I'm specifically concerned about--and I would
    open this up to whoever wants to answer this question. What is
    the thing that we can do as lawmakers right now to stop
    predators from getting access to our children?
        Mr. Pizzuro. I could--okay.
        Senator Moody. Let me start down there, and then we'll come
    to you.
        Representative Guffey. I want to use this as an example
    because the comment was made that we essentially have different
    laws for the outside world than we do for the inside world. If
    I had a storage facility and I stored only guns in there, and
    you as attorney general, and someone was breaking the law and I
    said, okay, the majority are law-abiding citizens, but we also
    have terrorists, and we're going to store guns for criminals.
    And if I told you that you had to have the digital ID to get
    into that locker, you'd think that's ludicrous. But that's
    exactly the way that we treat CSAM.
        I mean, to me, I believe that if you're housing CSAM, you
    should be held responsible. But nothing is going to change
    until we open up civil liability. These are the world's richest
    companies since the inception of man, and yet they are immune.
        Ms. Goldberg. And I'd say that if you have designed a
    product where you are exposing children to predators and you
    can't stop that from happening, then it's a defective product.
    And all a parent or a victim should have to do to be able to
    sue you is just to show that you know about the problem and the
    extent of it.
        Senator Moody. And in your experience--and I understand
    that this has happened--when parents have demanded and shown
    that this harmful material is online and demanded that they
    take it down, they've now told them about it, they know about
    it, and there have been refusals to take it down.
        Ms. Goldberg. Absolutely. And those cases get thrown out of
    court because the online platform says, well, I didn't know
    about that specific incident. You know, of course they're not
    going to know about that specific incident. Or they're going to
    say, I didn't intend to harm that exact child.
        Senator Moody. And, Mr. Pizzuro, I know you have law
    enforcement experience, and I'm grateful for that. Thank you.
    My husband is career law enforcement. Understanding that
    predators can now get to our children through online platforms
    and online, what is the number one thing you would recommend to
    prevent that, that we can do as Congress?
        Mr. Pizzuro. Device-based age verification. You mentioned
    parental controls. If there was a framework for a parent just
    to shut the spigot off and make it easy, rather than go through
    25 different apps. The companies have this. We can stop it at
    the device level. That's where we prevent children from getting
    onto some of these images and offenders getting access to those
    children.
        Senator Moody. Thank you. And since I am the Acting Chair,
    I don't want to exceed the boundaries of time, so I will turn
    it over to Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse [presiding]. Thank you. And I understand
    that I've been given permission to close out the hearing at the
    end of my questioning, so I know you have another place to be,
    so don't hesitate to go where you need to be.
        First of all, Ms. Goldberg, you said that repeal of 230 was
    long overdue. I'm hoping that that day is coming fairly soon
    and that a bipartisan bill to do just that will be filed by a
    group of Members from this Committee before very long.
        As you also pointed out, there are standards by which to
    evaluate the conduct--or misconduct of these big platforms that
    the law already affords, and everybody else has to abide by
    those same standards--if you're a radio station, if you're a
    newspaper, if you're a manufacturer, if you're an individual.
    Some of them go back to the English common law that came over
    with the first settlers. And the idea that what Representative
    Guffey described, I think quite well, as institutions that are
    the richest since the inception of man shouldn't be bound by
    the law.
        I adore Ron Wyden. I think he's a wonderful Senator. He put
    Section 230 in when these platforms were in people's garages.
    And they've gone from that to being the richest companies since
    the inception of man--I'm not going to forget that phrase of
    yours, Representative Guffey. I like it--with no change in
    Congress' response to the original rationale for having that
    Section 230 protection and also repeated grotesque failure by
    these entities to police themselves. It's not as if we're
    dealing with a array of platforms that have a demonstrated
    record of meeting the public interest in the safety of their
    product. Not at all.
        As a--lawyer to lawyer, Ms. Goldberg, talk a little bit
    about when the Section 230 defense first kicks in and what that
    means in terms of you and your clients actually being able to
    get discovery, to take a deposition, to find out the truth of
    what actually transpired.
        Ms. Goldberg. What happens is that I file a lawsuit with
    all my facts, with everything that I can know, even though
    there's so much asymmetry of knowledge. Like I don't know the
    extent to which the platform knows about the exact problem or
    the overall problem. I can just base it on what's happened to
    my client, if they're alive. Otherwise, I have to go through
    their parents. So immediately, within like 30 days----
        Senator Whitehouse. So you file your complaint----
        Ms. Goldberg [continuing]. They----
        Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. You state a claim----
        Ms. Goldberg [continuing]. They file a motion----
        Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. And then they file----
        Ms. Goldberg [continuing]. To dismiss----
        Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. A motion to dismiss.
        Ms. Goldberg [continuing]. Saying, we're just a publishing
    platform. We're not a product. This is just speech. And then
    they attempt to get it dismissed. Oftentimes, judges will do it
    without even oral argument, and then we never get into
    discovery. So we never get the opportunity to even show or know
    exactly the extent to which the platform has been tolerating
    and making money off of this exact harm. We don't have any
    information about other similar incidents--nothing.
        Senator Whitehouse. So it's a vehicle not only for evading
    responsibility for bad acts, but it's a vehicle also for
    covering up what actually took place. It would be slightly
    different if the Section 230 dismissal motion was something
    that you made at trial, for instance----
        Ms. Goldberg. Yes. And I----
        Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. So that you'd have a full
    chance, but they--not even that.
        Ms. Goldberg. I also believe that even more terrifying to
    tech than facing a jury eye-to-eye is the discovery.
        Senator Whitehouse. Yes.
        Ms. Goldberg. It was the discovery that made Omegle shut
    down. I had 60,000 documents showing all these other similar
    incidents of child sexual abuse, and they just--they shuttered
    their platform because they had no defense.
        Senator Whitehouse. Discovery is a beautiful thing. Senator
    Padilla.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Guffey, I just want to begin with you and let you know
    that my heart goes out to you for you and your family's
    experience, and I really appreciate your willingness to be here
    today to share your testimony.
        Representative Guffey. Thank you.
        Senator Padilla. I want to draw my colleagues' attention to
    what's represented to minors by a relatively new consumer
    product, character-based AI chatbot apps. Many of these
    services have been flooded with age-inappropriate chatbots
    which may cause young users to be exposed to sexual or
    suggestive AI-generated imagery or conversations. As a father
    of three school-aged children, this is personal. Further
    conversations with these chatbots can end tragically, as we've
    heard reports. Since 2023, at least two individuals have died
    by suicide following extensive conversations with AI chatbots.
    So the threat, colleagues, the risk is real.
        Mr. Guffey, how would you recommend that this Committee
    begin to think about--or think through the risk posed by this
    emerging consumer product category?
        Representative Guffey. Whenever it comes to AI, I would
    have to lean more on some of the other panelists up here on
    their expertise when addressing chatbots. Chatbots is something
    new that I have just started really looking into. But on the
    legal side, I'm not an attorney. So--I'm an angry parent that,
    you know, tries to throw it against the wall, whereas the
    attorneys are the ones who have to say, this is what will hold
    up in court, this is what will not.
        Senator Padilla. Well, we've had to figure out the
    legalese, but I do think you have the most important voice
    here, given your experience. I mean, the chatbot piece is just
    the next iteration----
        Representative Guffey. Yes, sir.
        Senator Padilla [continuing]. Of this technology.
        Representative Guffey. Yes, sir.
        Senator Padilla. We know what technology was when you and I
    were much younger----
        Representative Guffey. Everything----
        Senator Padilla [continuing]. But what children have to
    contend with today, we can only imagine what's coming.
        Representative Guffey. Well, and that's the exact problem.
    It's not just the problem--that's the problem of today, but
    it's as tech is evolving, our laws don't move fast enough to
    keep up with. And I believe that having that liability and
    being able to hold these companies responsible for what they
    are presenting--if we--instead of taking online services and
    treating it as a service, if we can simply treat it as a
    product, then we can hold them to consumer protection laws.
        Mr. Balkam. Senator, if I may, I think we should think
    about the international context in which this is playing out
    because the recent AI summit in Paris was called the AI
    Security Summit rather than the AI Safety Summit, which had
    taken place in the U.K. and, I believe, in Korea. And there's
    been a shift away from the prevailing thought that we must make
    these products safe, and instead--and particularly this
    administration is urging the vast and quick expansion of these
    tools. And I think you have a role, and your colleagues have a
    role, to bring that focus back. And I dearly hope you do.
        Senator Padilla. Ms. Goldberg, you seem----
        Ms. Goldberg. I do. One of my close friends, Matthew
    Bergman, is actually litigating a case against Character.AI
    where the bot encouraged addictive behavior and ultimately led
    the child to die by suicide. And I think what we'll find is
    that there's a possibility that courts will perceive this
    speech as the corporation's own speech, and in that case,
    Character.AI is owned by Google, and that it won't overcome a
    Section 230 challenge.
        Senator Padilla. Okay. Very good point, actually. So what I
    would do, just in the interest of time, is invite all of you to
    respond to the same question after the hearing as part of our
    questions for the record because I do want to get to at least
    one more topic. And I understand Senator Graham is on his way
    back, as well.
        Last Congress, we had a hearing very similar to this, but
    instead of you five sitting in front of us testifying, it was
    actually the CEOs of the five largest social media companies
    testifying to the Committee. And I had the opportunity then to
    ask them each about the parental tools that they offer or
    didn't, but I think all of them offered some sort of parental
    tool to help parents--help minors safely navigate the use of
    their respective services.
        I asked them to describe what those tools were, and more
    specifically what the adoption and use rates of those tools
    were because you can have tools and protections out there, and
    you can debate whether it's sufficient or not, but if people
    aren't even utilizing them, then kind of what's the point? And
    sadly, they either didn't share how widely used these tools
    were, didn't provide the data--and they're all very big into
    data--or what data they did show demonstrated to us that the
    usage rates were actually very low.
        So the conclusion, unavoidable, undeniable, is that the
    industry isn't doing enough to let parents know what resources
    are available and aren't investing enough into understanding
    why these so-called protections aren't being adopted at greater
    rates.
        Mr. Balkam, in your testimony, you observed that these
    controls would better serve minors and their guardians if they
    were standardized, interoperable, and unified between apps,
    devices, and brands. How do you think we can make that a
    reality?
        Mr. Balkam. Well, I often use the example of the automobile
    industry. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, if you got out of one
    car and into another, you may not necessarily know where the
    blinkers are or the light switches were. Even the logos for
    those were different in different car makes. Well, laws came
    into place in the 1960s, and, in fact, now, when you get into a
    new rental car, you know exactly where the indicators are. You
    know exactly where the lights are. And the symbols are all the
    same.
        Well, I'd like to see the industry come together, ideally
    voluntarily, but if not, perhaps with some coercion, to
    standardize the ways in which parental controls and online
    safety tools, which, by the way, are the ones that teens and
    young people use to stay private, to report, and to block,
    oftentimes without even their parents' knowledge. But in other
    words, let's have a standardized way of keeping our kids safe
    and that teens can keep themselves safe that is not as
    confusing as we got at the moment.
        Senator Padilla [presiding]. Yes, industry standards. It's
    not a new concept, and it tends to happen one of two ways. It
    either gets imposed by some level of government, and then
    industry comes away kicking and screaming, or they can actually
    live up to their responsibility and come together as an
    industry and put forward a model that is transparent and that
    either works or at least we can measure and hold them
    accountable when and where it doesn't.
        I know it's been a long morning for all of you. Very, very
    much appreciate your participation in today's hearing and the
    work that you do and the perspectives that you've offered. I'm
    told Senator Graham is not coming after all, and so it falls
    upon me to not just thank all of our witnesses, but remind
    folks that the hearing record will remain open for 1 week for
    statements to be submitted into the record. Questions for the
    record may be submitted by Senators by 5 p.m. on Wednesday,
    February 26th.
        And unless there's anything further from the nameplates----
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Padilla [continuing]. This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:26 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                Responses of Prof. Mary Graw Leary to Questions
                       Submitted by Senator Alex Padilla

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                A P P E N D I X

    The following submissions are available at:

      https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-119shrg61324/pdf/CHRG-119shrg
        61324-add1.pdf

    Submitted by Chairman Grassley:

     Adoptive mother of CSAM victims-survivors, February 16, 2025,
        letter--Redacted..............................................     2

     Alliance to Counter Crime Online, November 25, 2024, letter......     4

     Amy, plaintiff in a CSAM class-action lawsuit, February 17, 2025,
        letter........................................................     7

     Barnett, Elizabeth, parent of CSAM victim, February 23, 2025,
        letter........................................................     8

     Chelsea, CSAM victim-survivor, February 17, 2025, letter.........    11

     Doe, Jane, adoptive mother of CSAM victims-survivors, February
        16, 2025, letter..............................................    13

     Emily, CSAM victim-survivor, February 16, 2025, letter...........    15

     Sexual Exploitation and Abuse of Children Coalition and End OSEAC
        Survivors' Council, statement.................................    17

     Erika, CSAM victim-survivor, February 17, 2025, letter...........    20

     Gabriel, CSAM victim-survivor, February 14, 2025, letter.........    22

     Haba, Lisa D., et al., February 17, 2025, letter.................    25

     Henley, CSAM victim-survivor, February 16, 2025, letter..........    30

     Kauzie, CSAM victim-survivor, February 16, 2025, letter..........    32

     Leary, Mary Graw, Villanova Law Review, Volume 70, 2025, article.    34

     Mother (I) of a CSAM victim-survivor, February 16, 2025, letter--
        Redacted......................................................    97

     Mother (II) of a CSAM victim-survivor, February 16, 2025,
        letter--Redacted..............................................    99

     Mother of J, a CSAM victim-survivor, February 17, 2025, letter...   101

     Susanna, mother of CSAM victims-survivors, February 16, 2025,
        letter........................................................   102

     Victim-survivor of CSAM, February 15, 2025, letter--Redacted.....   104

     Victim-survivor of CSAM, February 16, 2025, letter--Redacted.....   105

                                     [all]