This bill would add a new article to the General Business Law creating statewide rules aimed at protecting minors online. It defines covered “social media platforms” broadly to include algorithm-driven services with addictive design features such as infinite scrolling, push notifications, autoplay, interactive metrics, and live-streaming, while excluding services whose exclusive function is email or direct messaging. Under the bill, children under 14 could not enter into account-holder contracts on covered platforms, and accounts held by users under 14 would have to be terminated, with notice and dispute rights, parent/guardian-initiated termination rights, and deletion of personal information. For ages 14 and 15, parental consent would be required to create or maintain an account, with similar termination and deletion procedures if consent is absent.
The bill also targets online access to “material harmful to minors.” It would prohibit knowingly and intentionally publishing or distributing such material on a website or application unless the provider uses age verification to confirm the user is at least 18 and blocks access by minors. The bill requires both anonymous age verification and standard age verification options, and it includes exemptions for bona fide news or public-interest content, news-gathering organizations, and certain internet infrastructure providers such as ISPs, search engines, and cloud providers when they are not responsible for creating the content.
The bill would significantly affect the General Business Law by creating a new Article 45-A with definitions, platform obligations, age-verification requirements, enforcement mechanisms, and privacy protections for verification data. It would require age-verification systems to avoid retaining or repurposing personal identifying information and to keep such information anonymous and secure. Enforcement would be led by the Attorney General, who could seek injunctions, restitution, disgorgement, destruction of unlawfully obtained data, damages, civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation, and punitive damages for patterns of knowing and reckless conduct. Minors would also have a private right of action with penalties up to $10,000 per violation.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text and caption is protective and child-safety oriented, with the measure framed as a response to social media harms and exposure to inappropriate content. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented floor or committee debate to show support or opposition. The bill’s structure, however, suggests an intent to balance child protection with privacy and press exemptions, while imposing substantial compliance and liability obligations on platforms and content providers.
Notable points of contention likely include the breadth of the definition of “social media platform,” the inclusion of algorithmic and design-feature criteria, and the age-verification mandate for harmful content, which may raise privacy, free speech, and implementation concerns. The bill’s parental-consent rules for 14- and 15-year-olds, the requirement to delete account data, and the possibility of significant civil penalties and private lawsuits could also be disputed by technology companies, civil liberties advocates, and publishers. The anonymous age-verification provisions and exemptions for news and infrastructure providers appear designed to address some of those concerns, but the bill still places substantial regulatory burdens on covered entities.
The bill would amend the General Business Law by adding Article 45-A, creating new duties for social media platforms and websites that distribute material harmful to minors. It would regulate account access for users under 16, require age verification for certain sexual content online, impose data-handling restrictions on verification providers, and authorize Attorney General enforcement and private civil actions. The measure would directly affect social media companies, online publishers, age-verification vendors, and potentially other websites or applications that host or distribute covered content.
The bill is presented in a strongly protective, pro-child-safety posture, with its caption and provisions focused on shielding minors from harmful online content and addictive platform design. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented legislative debate or recorded level of support and opposition. Based on the text alone, the measure appears intended to appeal to concerns about youth mental health, online exploitation, and exposure to sexual content, while also trying to preserve some exemptions for news and infrastructure providers.
Likely points of contention are the scope of the platform definition, the age thresholds for account access, and the requirement that providers verify age before allowing access to harmful material. Critics may argue that the bill could burden speech, create privacy risks through age verification, and be difficult to implement consistently across platforms. Supporters would likely emphasize the need to protect minors, limit addictive design features, and prevent access to explicit material. The bill’s exemptions for news organizations and certain internet service providers suggest an effort to narrow the reach of the law, but those carveouts may not resolve broader concerns about overbreadth and enforcement.