HB1430 would create a new chapter in Title 50 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes focused on protecting minors on social media. The bill defines covered “social media platforms” broadly, including certain online services and online video games, and sets out rules for account creation, content moderation reporting, data use, and deletion of information collected from minors. It also states legislative findings linking teen social media use to mental health harms, self-harm, and exposure to violence, and frames the bill as a response to those risks.
The bill would require social media companies to make commercially reasonable efforts to verify user age or apply minor protections to all users, and it would prohibit a minor under 16 from opening an account without express parental or guardian consent. Platforms would have to provide notice of the consent requirement, offer ways to revoke consent, and allow some level of parental supervision. The bill also requires platforms to maintain a reporting mechanism for “hateful conduct,” defined as content that vilifies or incites violence against protected groups, and to publish policies explaining how such reports are handled.
HB1430 would also impose significant limits on data practices involving minors. It would bar social media companies from mining minors’ data, selling or profiting from minors’ personal information, using targeted advertising based on a minor’s age, gender, or interests, and using personalized recommendation systems unless a minor opts in. The bill further restricts precise geolocation processing, bans dark patterns, and limits default contact from unknown adults. In addition, it gives qualified individuals, including parents and adults whose data was collected when they were minors, a right to request correction or deletion of personal information, with required notice and timelines for deletion.
The bill gives enforcement authority primarily to the Attorney General and establishes civil penalties for violations, including daily fines for failure to provide hateful-conduct reporting tools, escalating penalties for unauthorized minor accounts, and substantial penalties for data-related violations. In some cases, repeated intentional violations could lead to injunctions limiting or prohibiting a company from operating accounts for minors in Pennsylvania. Civil penalties collected under the bill would be directed to the School Safety and Security Fund for mental-health-related services for school entities. The act would take effect 18 months after enactment.
Overall, the bill appears motivated by strong concern about youth mental health and online safety, and its structure suggests a protective, regulatory approach toward social media companies. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the available context does not show formal debate or partisan division, but the bill’s broad age-verification, consent, data, and enforcement provisions indicate likely contention over privacy, free speech, platform compliance costs, and the scope of state regulation of online services.
HB1430 would amend Title 50 by adding a new chapter regulating social media platforms’ treatment of minors, creating new duties for companies that operate in Pennsylvania and new enforcement powers for the Attorney General. It would affect social media companies, online platforms, and certain online video games by imposing parental-consent requirements, age-assurance expectations, data-processing restrictions, deletion rights, and reporting obligations for hateful conduct. It also creates new civil penalty structures and authorizes court orders that could restrict a company’s ability to operate accounts for minors in the Commonwealth.
Based on the bill text, the overall sentiment is strongly protective of minors and skeptical of the harms posed by social media. The findings emphasize teen mental health, self-harm, and exposure to harmful content, suggesting the bill is intended as a public-health and child-safety measure. No committee discussion or votes were provided, so there is no recorded evidence of opposition or support beyond the bill’s own framing.
The most likely points of contention are the bill’s breadth and enforceability. The parental-consent mandate, age-verification requirements, and potential penalties for unauthorized accounts may be viewed by opponents as burdensome or difficult to implement, especially for large platforms and services that may not fit traditional social-media categories. The hateful-conduct reporting requirement could raise free-speech and moderation concerns, although the bill includes a First Amendment savings clause. The restrictions on data mining, targeted advertising, geolocation, and recommendation systems may also be disputed as overbroad or technically difficult, while supporters would likely argue they are necessary to protect minors from exploitation and harm.