Social media platforms requirements establishment related to accounts for minors
SF4696 would create a new Minnesota law aimed at reducing harms from social media use by children and minors. It applies to “covered social media platforms,” defined as public-facing platforms with at least $1 billion in worldwide advertising revenue in one of the prior three years, and imposes special rules for accounts held by Minnesota residents who are age 15 or younger. The bill requires platforms to collect birth dates at signup, estimate users’ ages using information already in their possession, and treat an account as a child account unless the platform can meet specified confidence thresholds that the user is older than 15.
For child accounts, the bill requires default privacy settings at the most private level and bars platforms from changing those settings without verifiable parental consent. It also requires platforms to offer parents the ability to monitor usage, set daily and weekly time limits, and restrict access by time of day. The bill prohibits addictive interface features—such as infinite scroll, autoplay video, push notifications, profile-based feeds, and engagement badges—from being shown in child accounts, and it also bans targeted paid commercial advertising in child feeds. Platforms must terminate child accounts when required, including upon request by the child or parent, and must provide notice and an opportunity to dispute age classification before termination in some cases.
The bill would significantly affect Minnesota consumer protection and privacy law by creating a new chapter 325M section, invalidating contracts formed in violation of the law, and making noncompliant terms of service unenforceable. It creates a private right of action for children and parents, authorizes damages, attorney fees, and injunctive relief, and adds enhanced statutory damages and possible punitive damages for reckless or knowing violations. It also classifies knowing or reckless violations as deceptive trade practices under section 325D.44, giving the attorney general enforcement authority under section 8.31. The law would take effect November 1, 2026, and apply to accounts created before or after that date.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly protective of children and skeptical of platform design practices that encourage prolonged use or targeted advertising. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented debate in the supplied materials, but the structure of the bill suggests a policy approach focused on parental control, privacy, and limiting platform-driven engagement. The bill’s detailed compliance requirements and private enforcement provisions indicate an intent to create strong incentives for platforms to change their products for minors.
Likely points of contention include whether the age-estimation and parental-consent requirements are technically feasible, whether the bill could burden platforms with costly compliance obligations, and whether the restrictions on feeds, notifications, and advertising are too broad or could affect speech and product design. Another likely issue is the scope of the law’s coverage, since it targets only very large platforms and uses definitions that may be difficult to administer. Supporters would likely emphasize child safety, privacy, and reduced addictive design, while opponents would likely focus on implementation challenges, overbreadth, and potential conflicts with existing federal law or platform operations.
The bill would add a new Minnesota Statutes chapter 325M provision regulating social media platforms that serve minors, especially platforms with at least $1 billion in annual advertising revenue. It would require age estimation, parental consent for child accounts, default privacy protections, limits on addictive interface features and targeted advertising, and account termination procedures. It also creates private enforcement rights, statutory damages, attorney-fee recovery, deceptive-trade-practice liability, and attorney general enforcement authority, thereby expanding both consumer-protection and civil-liability exposure for covered platforms and affecting the rights of Minnesota children and parents using those services.
No committee testimony or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative support or opposition in the supplied materials. Based on the bill’s text, the measure is framed in a strongly protective, child-safety-oriented way, suggesting a favorable posture toward restricting social media practices seen as harmful to minors. The absence of recorded debate means the public sentiment in the materials cannot be measured, but the bill itself reflects a clear policy preference for parental control, privacy, and limits on platform engagement tactics.
The main likely points of contention are the bill’s technical and operational requirements for age estimation, the need to obtain and document verifiable parental consent, and the prohibition on addictive interface features and targeted ads for child accounts. Covered platforms may object that the law is costly, difficult to implement, and potentially overinclusive, especially given the need to infer age from existing data and repeatedly update estimates. Another likely dispute is the enforcement scheme, including private lawsuits, statutory damages, punitive damages, and the invalidation of contracts and arbitration clauses, which could be viewed as unusually aggressive. Supporters would likely argue these provisions are necessary to protect children from manipulative design and data use.