The U.S. Senate has proven itself willing and organized as it relates to getting children's online safety legislation to the finish line. The upper chamber is less than a year removed from passing a major omnibus children's safety package, the proposed Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act, that generated 91 votes to approve before consideration fizzled in the House.
The road to passing that Senate package is now back to square one, as the House's KOSPA shortcomings came as the 118th Congress' term ended, and the two-year legislative slate was wiped clean. Fast forward to the current state of play in the 119th Congress, and the Senate is already lining itself up to revive the KOSPA framework and go further on topics like children's sexual abuse material and ending Big Tech immunity under the Section 230 of the Communications Act.
The latest discussions began 19 Feb. in a Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing where committee members spent time rehashing past bipartisan bills they hope to revive that address the growing crisis around minors' online presence and allegations of wide-ranging exploitation by tech platforms.
Senate Judiciary Ranking Member Dick Durbin, D-Ill., highlighted how seriously the Senate is taking children's online safety matters, noting it is no small feat the debate "survived" the change to a new Republican majority following the 2024 election. Durbin indicated such carryover shows bipartisan "determination" previously reflected two years ago when five safety bills, including bills comprising the KOSPA, received unanimous Judiciary committee approval.
"None of these bills are the silver bullet that would make the internet completely safe for our kids," Durbin said. "But they would be significant steps toward finally holding tech companies accountable for the harms they’ve caused, the damages they’ve caused."
The way forward on potential KOSPA revival
The Senate's previous KOSPA package contained the proposed Kids Online Safety Act, the Children and Teen's Online Privacy Protection Act, and the Filter Bubble Transparency Act. Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., have not yet reintroduced this package to the new Congress, but comments from both sponsors at the Judiciary hearing indicated the proposal has by no means been abandoned.
Among the key issues that prevented House consideration of the package in 2024 was the perception that some KOSA provisions impacted First Amendment rights.
KOSA proposed requirements for privacy-by-default standards, opt-outs of personalized algorithmic recommendations, parental controls over children's online activities and risk audits. However, the proposed design standards have been viewed as means to generate censorship and violations of free speech.
Blumenthal took aim at dispelling the censorship narrative, detailing how KOSA requirements cover "conduct involved in product design."
"There is 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.," Blumenthal said. "It is not free-speech to design a defective and harmful product. It's conduct."
Blackburn was critical of Big Tech companies' inaction after watching and participating in Congress' children's online safety talks, calling it "tragic" that platforms have merely done "window dressing" in response to critiques and preparing for any potential legislation.
Regardless of the Senate's next KOSPA moves, the House Republican majority continues to insist on forming its own children's online safety framework separate from the Senate.
Big Tech immunity in focus
Addressing platform liability for child harms is another goal for federal lawmakers in the children's safety debate. The monetization of children's data is among the harmful acts, but Judiciary members focused on more exploitive examples — most notably a growing CSAM network across platforms — when discussing the need to remove blanket protections for Big Tech under Section 230.
Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., opined that Section 230 was drafted when the U.S. digital landscape was a "nascent industry" and with urgings from companies about how protections were required to avoid stifling innovation and promote content moderation standards. "There may have been a time when they moderated content, but those days seem to be over," he added.
Motions to repeal or reform Section 230 are not unique for Congress, but consensus on changes is difficult. Stripping immunity may require a more targeted approach, which Ranking Member Durbin and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., aim to do with the proposed Strengthening Transparency and Obligations to Protect Children Suffering from Abuse and Mistreatment Act, which they reintroduced ahead of the Judiciary hearing.
The key component to the STOP CSAM Act is providing a right of action over violations of the act, which Hawley described during the hearing as the only tool that will foster meaningful change among companies.
"In 2019, Facebook was fined by the (Federal Trade Commission) USD5 billion ... and their stock price went up. What does that tell you about what these companies fear? Do you think (companies) fear these government regulatory agencies that almost never bring suits and almost never bring enforcement?" Hawley said. "They're absolutely terrified of a parent coming into court, getting in front of a jury and holding (a company) accountable. ... Until Congress gives parents the ability to sue, nothing will change."
Joe Duball is the news editor for the IAPP.
