Meta Platforms has been pressing Congress for legislation to protect it from liability for child harm on its social media, such as Instagram. The move follows a number of thousand lawsuits by young users and their families claiming that Meta’s products have caused serious emotional and psychological harm. The proposed provision, which would exempt federal companies from state-level child safety lawsuits, has been discussed with Reuters and is being sent to a bipartisan group of senators in the midst of ongoing talks on a bill dubbed the Kids Online Safety Act or KOSA that has a broad base of support in the Senate.
The proposed language under consideration would provide online companies immunity from litigation brought under state law for claims about the safety or privacy of minors online or as it relates to provisions of KOSA. This has made consumer advocates and trial lawyers very nervous, as they say such a clause would take the power to hold tech companies accountable for harming kids away from parents, schools and local governments. Meta has told the court that the provision isn’t an all-encompassing immunity and wouldn’t drop pending legal battles. A company spokesperson, Stephanie Otway, said the purpose is to create a uniform national standard on online youth safety, and to ensure these important issues are regulated under broad federal legislation — not a diffuse set of state laws or by plaintiffs’ lawyers. But critics say that the language is clearly general and could hurt on-going litigation, such as a recent case in California in which a woman won combined damages of six million dollars from Meta and Google’s YouTube because they allegedly knowingly created features that were addictive and harmful to minors.
The overall landscape of this lobbying shows just how great the pressure is on social media companies as lawmakers try to come up with the most comprehensive online platform regulation since the 1990s. The Senate passed the Kids Online Safety Act in 2024 in a 91-3 vote, but the bill was stalled in the House, and it has received support in the Senate this year from Sen. Majority Leader John Thune and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. The bill would impose reasonable requirements on social media platforms to prevent certain harms to minors, including compulsive use of social media platforms, as well as reasonable requirements regarding the deployment of features such as infinite scrolling, activity notifications, and photo filters that alter the appearance of photos. But it is these very features that plaintiffs in recent lawsuits have cited as proof that companies made deliberate decisions to maximize engagement over the health of younger users.
The proposed immunity language has been offered as a quid pro quo to drop its opposition to KOSA, which has given further reason for concern among advocacy groups who worry that the tech industry is trying to create immunities that would narrow the definition of the law. The text is “very clear in intent,” said Julia Duncan, the executive director of the American Association for Justice, which represents trial lawyers, adding that it would shield all parents and school districts from any liability against any AI or social media company causing harm to children. She stressed that the provision can only be read in one way, and would in effect render moot pending litigations at the time the law comes into force. This is a theme that seems to cover a range of issues that, in the eyes of many, are concerned with legislative protection of children online becoming a vehicle for industry to minimize their legal liability.
Meanwhile, the White House and lawmakers are discussing ways to bundle child online safety bills into a package containing a measure to preempt some state laws on AI, another complication in this debate. The proposed wording may not be as widely supported as it needs to be among the bill’s original sponsors, as Senator Marsha Blackburn’s Republican co-sponsor of KOSA has yet to see the specific liability provision and would never consider it. This mismatch between Meta’s advocacy and the messaging of influential lawmakers highlights the dynamic and unpredictable dynamics of the negotiations, and the evolving contours of the bill.
The result of this debate will be far-reaching for the tech industry, children’s rights groups and the law and regulations that govern the Internet’s safety. But the people who would like to see more regulation say the federal government needs to set a standard for the protection of minors in all states or else there will be a confusing and expensive array of state laws. They believe a uniform standard would give businesses clarity and guarantee that all children are treated equally, no matter where they live. However, critics argue that too general an immunity clause could eliminate the companies’ motivation to make their products safer, which could result in decreased responsibility and increased harm. The case against Meta and YouTube that led to a multi-million dollar verdict earlier this year was touted as an example of how litigation can be an effective tool for holding corporations accountable for the harm they can cause with their features.
