[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]