Generally revise social media laws for minors
HB 925 would create the “Social Media Youth Protection Act,” a new set of requirements for social media companies that offer services to minors in Montana. The bill requires companies to use an age-assurance system to identify minor users, provide a process to challenge age determinations, and then apply special protections to accounts identified as belonging to minors. Those protections include default maximum-privacy settings, limits on data collection and sale, restrictions on direct messaging and search indexing, deletion and removal rights on request, and disabling features such as autoplay, infinite scroll, and push notifications for minor accounts.
The bill also requires social media companies to offer optional supervisory tools for minors, such as time limits, scheduled breaks, and parental or designated-adult access to certain account information and settings. It further bars minors from changing certain default privacy settings without verifiable parental consent and creates a presumption that a company’s terms of service include confidentiality protections for a minor’s personal information, subject to specified exceptions. The bill defines a wide range of terms related to social media design, personal information, and excessive use, and it takes effect immediately upon passage and approval.
HB 925 would add new consumer-protection-style obligations to Title 30, chapter 14, making violations enforceable under the Montana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act. It would impose compliance duties on social media companies operating in the state, especially those using algorithmic curation and engagement-driven design features, and would affect how they collect, use, disclose, and protect minors’ personal information. The bill also includes a $25,000 general fund appropriation to the Department of Justice for enforcement.
The bill appears to have had meaningful support in the House, passing Judiciary and then clearing second and third readings, but it did not advance in the Senate and ultimately died in standing committee. The committee vote history suggests the proposal was viewed favorably by a majority in the House and by the Senate committee at least on a motion to table, but the lack of final Senate advancement indicates the measure did not secure enough support to become law. Overall, the sentiment in the available record is mixed to supportive in principle, but not strong enough to overcome legislative resistance later in the process.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s broad regulation of social media design and operations, including mandatory age verification, restrictions on algorithmic feeds, limits on engagement features, and parental control requirements. Supporters would frame these provisions as necessary to protect minors’ mental health, privacy, and safety, while opponents may view them as burdensome for platforms, difficult to implement, and potentially overbroad in how they define covered services and required safeguards. The bill’s treatment of personal data, parental consent, and the disabling of common platform features for minors are the most likely areas of dispute.