Concerning protections for minors who access certain social media.
Summary
HB26-1148 would create a new set of protections for minors using certain online gaming services and social media platforms in Colorado. For covered online gaming businesses, the bill imposes a minimum duty of care for minors’ personal data and requires default privacy settings to be set at the highest level of privacy. It also requires tools for minors to request account deletion or unpublishing, limits data collection and retention, restricts targeted media recommendations and late-night push notifications, and adds special rules for age-assurance data.
The bill also requires covered gaming businesses to list prices in U.S. dollars at the point of sale and to collect a 5% fee on add-on transactions made by covered minors, with the revenue credited to the state public school fund. For social media platforms, the bill requires prominent disclosures about terms of service, privacy policies, and algorithmic recommendation systems, and it prohibits the use of algorithmic recommendation systems to sell or distribute illicit substances to minors. The bill would make violations of these requirements an unfair or deceptive trade practice under Colorado law and authorizes the attorney general to adopt implementing rules.
Impact
The bill would add a new Part 19 to article 1 of title 6 of the Colorado Revised Statutes governing protections for minors on online gaming sites, and it would expand the state’s deceptive trade practices law to treat violations as unfair or deceptive trade practices. It also creates new disclosure and conduct requirements for social media platforms in title 6, and amends the state public school fund statute so that fees collected from minor add-on transactions are deposited into that fund. The bill would affect online gaming businesses, social media platforms, processors handling age-assurance data, and minors under 18 who use these services in Colorado.
Sentiment
The available context shows the bill was introduced with a child-safety and privacy framing, but it did not advance out of the House Judiciary Committee and was postponed indefinitely. Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, there is no direct evidence of floor support or opposition beyond the bill’s failure to move forward. The structure and scope of the bill suggest a strong consumer-protection and youth-safety intent, but also a significant regulatory burden on covered businesses.
Contention
The main points of contention likely involve the breadth of the covered-business definition, the limits on data collection and recommendation systems, and the operational requirements for age assurance, privacy defaults, and account deletion. Businesses may object to the minimum duty of care standard, restrictions on personalization and monitoring, and the 5% fee on add-on transactions, while privacy advocates may support those same provisions as necessary safeguards. The bill also raises potential concerns about implementation, compliance costs, and possible tension with federal law, which the bill attempts to address through express limitations and exclusions.