Creates provisions relating to regulation of online content involving minors
HB 1818 creates a new section of Missouri law regulating social media content that involves minors and is monetized by content creators. The bill defines key terms such as “content creator,” “social media platform,” “restricted material,” and “uniquely identifiable” information, and it applies to creators who feature minors in compensated online content at specified thresholds. It also allows minors age 13 and older to create and publish their own content and keep the compensation from that work.
The bill requires content creators to keep detailed records about minors featured in monetized posts and to place a portion of earnings into a trust account for the minor, with funds becoming available when the minor turns 18 or is emancipated. It also gives individuals who were featured as minors the right, after August 28, 2026, to request deletion or editing of posts that include them, and it imposes notice and response duties on both creators and platforms. In addition, the bill prohibits financially benefiting from knowingly or intentionally distributing sexualized or otherwise restricted material involving minors, while preserving certain exceptions for lawful reporting, legal proceedings, law enforcement, and platform activity consistent with federal law.
HB 1818 would add new obligations for social media platforms and content creators operating in Missouri, including annual risk-mitigation strategies, content restrictions, and mechanisms for removal requests. It also authorizes enforcement by the attorney general and private civil actions, with possible damages, injunctions, and attorney’s fees. The bill expressly states that it should not be construed to conflict with Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act.
The overall sentiment in the available record appears neutral to cautious, with the bill having been advanced in committee form but later postponed on the House floor. There are no recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts showing direct debate, so the public record provided does not show strong support or opposition. The postponement suggests the measure may have raised unresolved policy or implementation concerns, but the specific reasons are not documented here.
The main points of contention likely center on the bill’s reach into social media operations, creator liability, privacy rights, and the practical burden of recordkeeping, trust-account administration, and content removal compliance. Potential concerns also include how platforms would verify requests, how “restricted material” and “newsworthy” exceptions would be applied, and whether the bill’s enforcement scheme could create conflicts with federal platform-immunity law or chill lawful online content creation.
The bill would add section 407.2100 to Missouri’s consumer protection chapter, creating new statutory duties for social media content creators and platforms involving minors. It would require record retention, trust accounts for minors’ earnings, content removal procedures, platform risk-mitigation policies, and civil enforcement by the attorney general and private litigants. It also cross-references Missouri’s transfers-to-minors law and incorporates existing obscenity/sexual content definitions from state law, while expressly limiting construction to avoid conflict with federal Communications Decency Act protections.
The available history suggests a mixed or unsettled reception. The bill was filed as a committee substitute and appears to have moved at least partway through the legislative process, but its last recorded action was “Action Postponed (H),” indicating it did not advance cleanly. Because there are no recorded votes or transcript excerpts, the record does not show explicit support or opposition, only that the measure remained unresolved and may have faced practical or policy concerns.
Likely areas of contention include the scope of regulation over influencers, vloggers, streamers, and other monetized creators; the burden on platforms to monitor, notify, and remove content; and the privacy and free-expression implications of allowing former minors to demand deletion or editing of posts. Another likely dispute is the bill’s treatment of “restricted material” and the exception for content deemed newsworthy or of public interest, which could be difficult to administer consistently. Stakeholders most likely to object would be social media companies, content creators, and civil liberties advocates, while supporters would likely emphasize child protection, privacy, and preventing exploitation of minors online.