SF2614 would create two related consumer-protection rules aimed at online platforms and websites accessible in Minnesota. First, it would regulate social media use by minors ages 15 and younger by defining certain platforms as “social media platforms” based on user activity, algorithmic content selection, and addictive features such as infinite scrolling, push notifications, autoplay, live streaming, and engagement metrics. Under the bill, children under 14 could not enter into a social media contract, and accounts for that age group would have to be terminated, with notice and a 90-day opportunity to dispute termination. For minors ages 14 and 15, parental or guardian consent would be required to create or maintain an account, and those accounts could also be terminated without consent. The bill also requires platforms to allow minors or their parents/guardians to request account deletion and to permanently delete personal information tied to terminated accounts, subject to legal retention requirements.
Second, the bill would require websites and applications that knowingly publish or disseminate material harmful to minors, and that contain a substantial portion of such material, to use anonymous age verification to confirm that users are 18 or older before allowing access. The bill defines anonymous age verification to require a third-party verifier located in the United States and imposes privacy restrictions on that verifier, including limits on retention, use, sharing, and security of identifying information. The age-verification requirement would not apply to bona fide news or public-interest content, and it would not make internet service providers, search engines, or cloud providers liable merely for transmitting or hosting content they did not create.
The bill would add new provisions to Minnesota Statutes chapter 325F and make violations actionable as unfair and deceptive trade practices. The attorney general could enforce both sections, seek civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation, attorney fees, court costs, and, in some cases, punitive damages. Minors could also bring private actions for damages of up to $10,000, subject to a one-year limitations period. The bill further provides that covered platforms and websites are subject to Minnesota court jurisdiction if they allow the relevant access in the state. The effective date for both sections is August 1, 2025, applying to causes of action accruing on or after that date.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll call history. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a protective, child-safety-oriented approach to social media and online sexual content, with strong enforcement mechanisms and privacy safeguards. The absence of recorded opposition in the supplied context means no specific legislative concerns are documented here, but the bill’s scope suggests likely areas of debate would include age verification burdens, privacy implications, platform compliance costs, and possible First Amendment or internet-regulation concerns.
The bill would create two new sections in Minnesota Statutes chapter 325F governing social media access by minors and anonymous age verification for online material harmful to minors. It would impose new duties on social media platforms, commercial websites, and third-party age-verification providers, while also creating new enforcement authority for the attorney general and private rights of action for minors. The bill would affect platforms that meet the statutory definition of social media, as well as commercial entities publishing substantial amounts of harmful-to-minors content, and would expose violators to civil penalties, damages, and attorney fees.
No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize from debate or roll call. The bill’s text indicates a generally protective and regulatory posture focused on child safety, parental consent, and restricting minors’ access to potentially harmful online content. The structure of the bill suggests support for stronger consumer protection and online age controls, but the provided materials do not show whether that approach was broadly accepted or contested in committee.
The main likely points of contention are the bill’s breadth and enforcement model. Social media companies may object to the definition of covered platforms, the requirement to terminate accounts for users under 14, and the parental-consent regime for ages 14 and 15, especially because the bill treats account access as a contract and imposes substantial penalties for violations. Websites and publishers may also contest the anonymous age-verification mandate for content deemed harmful to minors, including concerns about operational burden, user privacy, and whether the “substantial portion” threshold is too expansive. Privacy advocates may focus on the handling of identifying information by third-party verifiers, while free-speech and media interests may be concerned about the scope of the harmful-content standard and the potential impact on lawful content and access.