SB 1871 creates a new regulatory framework for social media platforms operating in Oklahoma, focused on age verification and heightened protections for users under 18. The bill requires social media companies to verify users’ ages through a “reasonable age verification process,” which must rely on authenticated state-issued identification and cannot be satisfied merely by a user self-reporting age or entering a birthdate. Existing accounts would be frozen on the effective date until the user’s age is verified and classified as either a minor or an adult.
For users determined to be minors, the bill imposes a series of default privacy and safety requirements. Platforms would have to set maximum-privacy defaults, limit visibility and direct messaging to connected accounts, disable search indexing, restrict data collection and sale, and turn off features that encourage prolonged use such as autoplay, infinite scroll, and push notifications. The bill also requires platforms to provide parental or guardian supervisory tools, including time limits, break schedules, account-setting visibility, and notifications of changes, and it limits a minor’s access to one hour per day unless a parent or guardian uses those tools. Parents or guardians could also request deletion of a minor’s personal information and removal of content the minor made public.
The bill also regulates how platforms handle personal information collected for age verification, requiring it to be segregated and used only for limited purposes. It creates a presumption of confidentiality for a minor user’s personal information, subject to exceptions for service operation, network communications, age verification, and legal compliance. Users may appeal their age designation by submitting documentary evidence, and the platform must decide the appeal within 30 days. The bill excludes text messaging platforms and platforms primarily related to education or health care.
SB 1871 would amend Oklahoma law by adding new sections to Title 75A governing social media companies, with enforcement authority placed in the Attorney General. The Attorney General could seek injunctions, compel compliance, and obtain civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation, with each violation treated separately. The bill also includes an emergency clause, meaning it would take effect immediately upon passage and approval.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided context, the overall sentiment is difficult to measure from legislative debate. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears to reflect a strong policy preference for child online safety, parental control, and privacy protections. Likely points of contention include the burden on social media companies to implement age verification and account freezes, the privacy implications of requiring government ID for verification, the one-hour daily access limit for minors, and the scope of parental control over minors’ accounts and data.
SB 1871 would add new statutory requirements to Oklahoma’s social media laws by creating a dedicated framework for age verification, minor-user privacy settings, parental supervision tools, and enforcement by the Attorney General. It would impose operational duties on social media companies, including account classification, data segregation, default privacy restrictions, feature disabling for minors, and a formal age-appeal process. The bill also authorizes civil enforcement and penalties, while exempting text messaging platforms and platforms primarily used for education or health care.
No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no direct record of legislative sentiment in the materials. The bill’s text suggests a protective, child-safety-oriented approach that is likely intended to appeal to supporters of stronger online safeguards for minors and parental oversight. At the same time, the bill’s extensive compliance obligations suggest it could draw concern from technology companies, privacy advocates, and others worried about implementation burdens and user-data handling.
The main points of contention are likely to be the mandatory age-verification regime, especially the use of state-issued identification, and the requirement to freeze existing accounts until users are verified. Another likely dispute is the bill’s treatment of minors, including the one-hour daily access limit, the disabling of engagement features, and the extent of parental control over account settings and content removal. Privacy concerns may also arise from the collection and segregation of personal information, while social media companies may object to the civil penalty structure and the operational complexity of compliance.