Utah Lawmakers Prepare Rewrite of Teen Social Media Restrictions

Utah lawmakers are considering sweeping revisions to the state’s first-in-the-nation youth social media restrictions ahead of their effective date after facing tech industry litigation.

Bills introduced this month—with both slated to get their first legislative committee hearings Wednesday—keep the thrust of the 2023 laws to give parents and children more control over social media use and penalize companies for certain harms. The proposed legislative changes would alter the initial approach, adding steps that social media sites could take to guard against civil lawsuits and other enforcement.

The debate comes as Utah and other states that followed its policy lead address lawsuits by tech groups that argue youth social media restrictions are overly broad and violate the US Constitution. Federal courts have halted implementation of such laws in Arkansas and Ohio, as well as a California law that takes a different approach to regulating kids online.

Utah lawmakers through the new measures may repeal provisions that set a social media curfew for minors under 18 and give parents complete access to their kids’ accounts. The pending bills include aspects that more people can agree on, such as stronger default privacy settings for minors, said Allison Fitzpatrick, partner at Davis+Gilbert LLP.

“We’re seeing the state pull back a little bit more and more to get it into a place where it’s more likely to be able to pass constitutional muster and go into effect,” she said.

The proposed changes have yet to appease NetChoice, a tech industry group with members including Meta Platforms Inc. and TikTok Inc., which is suing over Utah’s 2023 social media restrictions. The group has opposed social media age-verification requirements throughout the country like those included in Utah’s current law as well as the rewrite.

“Despite going back to the drawing board, Utah is still not on the right side of the Constitution,” NetChoice Litigation Center Director Chris Marchese said in a statement.

Addictive Features

One measure pending in Utah would require companies to verify the age of their users to determine with at least 95% accuracy if the person is a minor. A minor’s account would have heightened privacy protections by default and limited features, such as restrictions on messaging a stranger’s account.

Companies would have to offer tools such as setting daily time limits and mandatory breaks under the measure. The proposed requirements appear an effort to shore up the legislature’s initial intentions rather than “squarely addressing any substantive constitutional arguments,” Alfred Brunetti, principal at Porzio, Bromberg & Newman PC, said in an email.

The second bill takes aim at features that keep youth online for prolonged stretches. The measure would allow private lawsuits if a minor suffered mental health harms caused by excessive use of an “algorithmically curated social media service.”

A company would have an affirmative defense against those claims if they prove they limit youth access to their platforms to three hours per day, restrict overnight use of the platform, require parental consent for use, and disable certain algorithmic features for minors. Sites could not be held liable for the content of user posts.

The bills back away from the requirement in the 2023 law that social media sites obtain parental consent youth to operate accounts, but instead focus on giving parents authority over a minor’s data privacy and access to supervisory tools. Bill sponsors said the proposals still address the harms of social media such as addictive design features.

“Utah will continue to lead out on protecting youth and providing parents with tools and resources,” state Sen. Michael McKell (R), one of the lawmakers leading the push, said in a statement. “This is an unprecedented issue we’re dealing with, and it requires novel legislation.”

Litigation Delay

Utah lawmakers said they previously anticipated the need to amend the 2023 social media laws before their implementation date. Gov. Spencer Cox (R) signed a law last month changing that date from March 1 to Oct. 1 to allow more time for the legislative changes.

Utah officials used that postponement to successfully argue for a pause in court proceedings in NetChoice’s lawsuit against the laws. The group argues the requirements violate the First Amendment and pose data collection and privacy concerns.

The laws face a second lawsuit by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression that will continue after the Utah legislative session ends on March 1. The foundation is still reviewing the pending measures, said spokesperson Katie Kortepeter who declined further comment.

NetChoice has opposed postponing its pending litigation. Even with a delayed effective date, companies still face the choice of whether to prepare to comply with the laws and need certainty, the organization said in court filings.

“We look forward to a court hearing our case,” Marchese said.