Minors; social media and internet safety; account termination upon the request of minors or their parents or guardians; provide
SB 165 would substantially expand Georgia’s online safety rules for minors by imposing age-verification and account-access requirements on social media platforms and by strengthening penalties for violations. The bill requires providers to make commercially reasonable efforts to verify account holders’ ages, treat users under 16 as minors for purposes of the chapter, and bar minors under 14 from having accounts at all. For minors age 14 or 15, a platform could only allow an account with express parental or guardian consent, and the bill specifies several acceptable methods for obtaining that consent.
The bill also requires platforms to terminate accounts for users in the covered age groups, while giving account holders and parents or guardians a process to request termination and a 90-day window to dispute an involuntary termination. After termination, the platform must permanently delete personal information unless retention is legally required. In addition, platforms must provide parents or guardians with information about content moderation and censorship features available on the platform. The bill increases the civil and regulatory consequences for violations, raising fines under existing law and creating a new private civil remedy for minors to recover damages, attorney’s fees, and court costs for knowing or reckless violations.
In practical terms, SB 165 would amend Title 39 of the Georgia Code, especially the chapter governing online internet safety and social media platforms. It would raise the fine for commercial entities violating the age-verification and harmful-material provisions from up to $10,000 to up to $50,000 per violation, and it would increase the Attorney General’s enforcement authority under the social media chapter from up to $2,500 to up to $50,000 per violation, with a 90-day notice-and-cure process before enforcement. The bill also expressly states that platforms allowing minors to create accounts are subject to Georgia court jurisdiction and that allowing a minor 14 or older to create an account constitutes a contract with that minor.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is protective of minors and strongly regulatory toward social media companies. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available context. The structure of the bill suggests a policy goal of limiting minors’ access to social media, increasing parental control, and giving the state and affected minors stronger enforcement tools.
The main points of contention likely center on feasibility, privacy, and enforcement. Social media companies may object to mandatory age verification, the burden of obtaining and documenting parental consent, the requirement to delete personal data, and the exposure to large fines and private lawsuits. Privacy concerns may also arise from the consent-verification methods that can involve government ID or payment-card information, even though the bill requires deletion after verification. Supporters would likely emphasize child safety, parental oversight, and stronger accountability for platforms that allow underage users.
SB 165 would amend Georgia’s laws on minors and online internet safety by tightening restrictions on social media account access, expanding age-verification obligations, and increasing penalties for noncompliance. It would create new statutory duties for social media providers regarding account eligibility, parental consent, account termination, and deletion of personal information, while also expanding enforcement authority for the Attorney General and creating a private civil cause of action for minors. The bill would affect social media platforms, commercial entities subject to the existing harmful-materials provisions, minors under 16, and parents or guardians of minors, and it would take effect July 1, 2025.
The bill appears to be driven by a strong pro-child-safety and pro-parental-control policy sentiment. In the absence of committee testimony or vote data, there is no recorded public opposition or support in the provided materials, but the text itself reflects a clear intent to impose stricter obligations on social media companies and to reduce minors’ access to platforms. The overall tone is precautionary and enforcement-oriented rather than permissive.
Likely areas of contention include whether social media platforms can reliably verify ages without collecting sensitive personal information, whether the parental-consent process is workable, and whether the bill’s penalties are too severe. Platforms may argue that the bill is difficult to implement and could overblock legitimate users, while privacy advocates may object to the handling of identification and payment information. Civil liberties or industry critics may also challenge the private right of action, the broad jurisdictional language, and the requirement to terminate accounts based on age estimates or categorization. Supporters would likely prioritize protecting minors from harmful content and giving parents more control over their children’s online activity.