House Bill 542 creates the “Stop Harms from Addictive Social Media Act” and adds a new chapter to Title 48 of the Idaho Code. The bill is aimed at large social media platforms that generate at least $1 billion in worldwide advertising revenue and that use features the bill characterizes as addictive, such as infinite scroll, autoplay video, push notifications, profile-based feeds, and engagement badges or metrics. It requires platforms to estimate whether Idaho users are children after certain usage thresholds, and to treat users as children unless the platform can conclude with specified confidence levels that the user is older than 16.
For accounts identified as belonging to children, the bill requires default privacy settings at the most private level, prohibits changing those settings without verifiable parental consent, and bars addictive interface features and profile-based paid advertising in children’s feeds. It also requires platforms to offer parents tools to monitor and limit a child’s use, and it requires termination of a child’s account if parental consent is not obtained. Minors and parents may request account termination, and the bill sets timelines and notice requirements for disputes over age classification and age verification.
The bill also creates enforcement mechanisms and remedies. It gives children and parents a private right of action for declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, attorney’s fees, and, for reckless or knowing violations, statutory damages of at least $10,000 and possible punitive damages. Knowing or reckless violations are also treated as violations of Idaho’s consumer protection law, allowing the attorney general to investigate and enforce the chapter. The bill further declares that any contract terms, including arbitration clauses or liability limits, are unenforceable if a platform allows a child account without verifiable parental consent.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history appears generally supportive, with the bill passing the House 59-7, the Senate 21-14, and the House again 61-5 after Senate amendments. That pattern suggests broad bipartisan interest in regulating youth social media use, though not unanimous support. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded committee debate to summarize.
The main points of contention likely center on the bill’s scope and implementation. Critics may object to the age-estimation mandate, the use of platform-collected data to infer age, the restrictions on platform design and advertising, and the private right of action with statutory and punitive damages. Supporters likely view the bill as a child-safety measure intended to reduce addictive design practices, limit targeted advertising to minors, and give parents more control over children’s social media use.
The bill would add a new chapter to Title 48 of the Idaho Code regulating covered social media platforms and their treatment of Idaho users under 17. It would impose age-estimation obligations, parental-consent requirements, default privacy protections, limits on addictive interface features and targeted advertising for children, and account-termination procedures. It also creates civil remedies, authorizes attorney general enforcement through Idaho’s consumer protection framework, and makes certain contract waivers unenforceable as against public policy.
The voting history indicates the bill had substantial support in both chambers, passing the House by 59-7 and 61-5 and the Senate by 21-14. That suggests a generally favorable sentiment toward protecting minors from social media harms, while also showing meaningful opposition. No committee transcripts were provided, so the record does not show detailed floor or committee arguments beyond the votes themselves.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s regulatory reach and technical feasibility. Opponents may question whether platforms can reliably estimate age using existing data, whether the confidence thresholds and repeated reclassification requirements are workable, and whether the bill’s restrictions on feeds, notifications, autoplay, and targeted ads are overly broad. Another likely dispute is the private right of action and damages structure, including statutory damages, punitive damages, and the invalidation of arbitration and liability-limitation clauses. Supporters appear to favor these provisions as necessary to make the protections meaningful and enforceable.