HB 4388 would create the “Social Media Regulation Act” and impose age-verification and parental-consent requirements on social media companies that operate platforms with at least 5 million account holders worldwide. Before allowing a Michigan resident to open an account, and when existing users first try to access an account after the effective date, covered companies would have to verify age and, for minors, obtain express consent from a parent or guardian. If the requirements are not met, the company must deny account creation or block access to the existing account until compliance is achieved.
The bill also sets special rules for minor accounts. Social media companies would have to keep minor accounts out of search results except when linked through friending, prohibit targeted or suggested content and accounts for minors, and limit collection or use of personal information from minor accounts except as needed to comply with law. Parents or guardians who consent would receive access credentials or another means to view the minor’s posts and message responses, and they could modify or remove the default nighttime access restriction or set daily time limits. The bill further bars access to minor accounts between 10:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. unless a parent or guardian changes that setting.
HB 4388 would significantly affect Michigan law by creating new duties for social media companies, new enforcement authority for the attorney general, and a private right of action for consumers. The attorney general would have to investigate complaints, could seek civil fines of up to $2,500 per violation plus damages and injunctive relief, and would have to issue annual reports to the Legislature. The bill also requires the attorney general to promulgate implementing rules, including standards for age verification, identity methods, consent confirmation, and data retention and disposal. Contract terms waiving these protections or limiting complaint and lawsuit rights would be void and unenforceable.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available record is limited because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes attached to the bill. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears aimed at protecting minors online and giving parents more control over minors’ social media use, which suggests a consumer- and child-safety-oriented purpose. At the same time, the absence of recorded discussion means there is no documented legislative debate in the provided materials.
Likely points of contention include privacy, feasibility, and scope. The bill requires broad age verification and parental access to minors’ accounts, which could raise concerns about data security, anonymity, and the handling of sensitive information. Social media companies may also object to the operational burden of verifying age, enforcing curfews, and redesigning recommendation systems for minors. Another possible issue is whether the bill’s definitions and exemptions appropriately distinguish social media from messaging, gaming, e-commerce, news, and school-based platforms.
The bill would add a new regulatory framework in Michigan governing social media accounts held by minors and the companies that serve them. It would create mandatory age-verification and parental-consent procedures, restrict how minor accounts are displayed and targeted, limit data collection from minor accounts, require parental access tools, and impose nighttime access limits unless a parent overrides them. It would also authorize attorney general rulemaking, complaint investigation, civil enforcement, and consumer lawsuits, while voiding contract terms that attempt to waive the act’s protections or remedies.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from lawmakers in the available materials. The bill’s text indicates a protective, child-safety-focused approach that would likely appeal to supporters concerned about minors’ online exposure and parental oversight. At the same time, the breadth of the requirements suggests likely resistance from social media companies and privacy advocates concerned about implementation burdens and user-data implications.
The main areas of likely contention are the age-verification mandate, the requirement for parental access to minor accounts, and the nighttime access restrictions. Critics may argue that verifying age and obtaining consent at scale is difficult, costly, and potentially intrusive, especially because the bill limits but does not eliminate the collection of information used for verification. Others may object that giving parents access to all posts and message responses could undermine minors’ privacy and safety. The bill’s broad definition of covered social media companies and its restrictions on targeted content and data use for minors may also be disputed as overinclusive or technically difficult to administer.