SB 11 creates a new chapter in the Indiana Code requiring social media operators to obtain verifiable parental consent before allowing a minor user, defined as a person under 16, to view social media. The bill defines “social media” broadly as internet-based applications that allow users to create profiles or accounts to communicate, create, share, or view user-generated content, while excluding certain services such as interactive gaming, internal business or government communication tools, email-only services, preselected non-user-generated content sites, and certain crowdsourcing tools.
The bill also requires operators to identify accounts created by minors without consent, block access until consent is obtained, notify parents or guardians that consent may be revoked, and provide a revocation process. It requires commercially reasonable security measures and encryption for information collected under the chapter. Enforcement authority is given to the attorney general, who may issue civil investigative demands, send a notice of violation with a 90-day cure period for first-time violations, and then seek injunctive relief, civil penalties up to $250,000, and costs if the violation is not remedied. Information collected in enforcement actions involving minors is made confidential.
In addition to the new social media consent chapter, SB 11 amends Indiana’s consumer protection and data-security statutes to treat information collected by social media operators as “personal information” under the state’s data breach law and to make violations of the new social media security chapter an unfair, abusive, or deceptive act under the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act. The bill also cross-references the new chapter in related enforcement provisions, tying social media privacy and parental consent requirements into existing trade regulation and consumer protection law.
The overall sentiment appears generally supportive in the Senate, with the Judiciary Committee reporting the bill favorably by a 10-1 vote and the full Senate later passing it 42-7 on third reading. That voting pattern suggests broad support for the bill’s goal of increasing parental control and protecting minors online, though not unanimous agreement.
The main points of contention are likely the scope and enforceability of the social media definition, the burden placed on platforms to verify age and parental consent, and privacy/security concerns around collecting and storing consent-related information. The bill’s broad coverage of platforms accessible in Indiana, combined with significant penalties and attorney general enforcement authority, may also raise concerns among social media companies and civil liberties advocates about implementation costs, user privacy, and potential overbreadth.
SB 11 would add a new chapter to Title 24 of the Indiana Code governing verifiable parental consent for social media access by minors under 16. It would impose affirmative duties on social media operators to verify parental consent, maintain revocation procedures, secure collected data, and comply with attorney general enforcement actions. The bill also amends Indiana’s personal information and consumer protection statutes so that social media-collected information is covered by the state data breach law and violations of the new chapter are treated as deceptive consumer practices, expanding the legal consequences for noncompliance for platforms and related service providers.
The bill appears to have favorable momentum and relatively strong legislative support. It was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 10-1 vote and passed the Senate 42-7 on third reading, indicating broad agreement with its child-safety and parental-consent objectives. The limited opposition suggests some concern remained, but the recorded votes show the bill was generally well received.
Likely areas of dispute include whether the bill’s definition of social media is too broad or too narrow, whether age and parental-consent verification is technically feasible without excessive data collection, and whether the bill could create privacy risks by requiring operators to collect and retain sensitive information. Social media companies may object to compliance burdens and potential liability, while critics may question the bill’s effect on minors’ access to online speech and the practical enforceability of the attorney general’s penalty scheme. Supporters, by contrast, appear focused on parental oversight, child safety, and stronger privacy protections for minors.