The Safe Messaging for Kids Act of 2025 (SMK Act) would regulate certain messaging tools on social media platforms when those tools are used by minors. It prohibits platforms from offering ephemeral messaging features to covered users, defined as users under 17 whom the platform knows are minors or would know but for willful disregard. The bill also requires platforms that offer direct messaging to minors to provide easily accessible parental direct messaging controls that parents can activate with verifiable parental consent.
For users under 13, direct messaging would be disabled by default unless a parent gives verifiable consent to enable it. The parental controls would allow parents to receive alerts about message requests from unapproved contacts, approve or deny those requests, view and manage approved contacts, be notified if the child changes their listed age, and disable direct messaging entirely. The bill also requires app stores to provide clear warnings to parents when a covered user tries to download or purchase an app with direct messaging features, if the parent has set a consent requirement through the app store.
The bill would be enforced primarily by the Federal Trade Commission as an unfair or deceptive practices matter, and state attorneys general could also bring civil actions on behalf of residents, subject to notice requirements and limits when a federal action is pending. It includes rules of construction stating that it does not require weakening encryption, decrypting user communications, or creating systemic surveillance capabilities, and it directs implementation to preserve privacy and security to the maximum extent technically feasible.
The bill would preempt state and local laws that relate to its subject matter, creating a uniform federal standard for ephemeral messaging and parental direct messaging controls on social media platforms. It would take effect 180 days after enactment, with a one-year compliance period for the parental control requirements and an 18-month period for the app store warning requirement.
The available legislative history shows little recorded controversy at this stage: the bill was forwarded by subcommittee to the full committee by voice vote, and there are no recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts provided. That suggests general procedural support in committee, though the subject matter itself implicates recurring policy debates over child safety, parental control, platform design, privacy, encryption, and federal preemption.
The bill would add new federal requirements for social media platforms and app stores regarding minors’ access to direct messaging and ephemeral messaging. It would effectively ban disappearing-message features for covered users, require parental control tools for direct messaging, and impose notice obligations on app stores. It would also create FTC enforcement authority and allow state enforcement actions, while expressly preserving encryption and limiting any interpretation that would require providers to weaken security. The bill would preempt conflicting state and local laws on the same subject, affecting platform operators, app stores, parents, and minors nationwide.
Based on the limited legislative record provided, the bill appears to have been received favorably at the subcommittee level, as it was forwarded to the full committee by voice vote. No recorded opposition, amendments, or transcript debate is included, so there is no evidence of formal controversy in the materials provided. Substantively, the bill aligns with a child-safety and parental-oversight approach that is likely to attract support from lawmakers concerned about online harms to minors, while also raising issues that often draw scrutiny from privacy, civil liberties, and technology stakeholders.
The main points of contention likely concern the balance between protecting minors and preserving user privacy, encryption, and platform design flexibility. Technology and privacy advocates may object to the ban on ephemeral messaging for minors and to the scope of parental control requirements, while supporters are likely to emphasize safety, parental oversight, and reducing unsolicited contact. Another likely issue is federal preemption, since the bill would override state and local laws on the same topic and centralize enforcement in the FTC, though it preserves a role for state attorneys general. The bill also raises practical questions about age verification, identifying covered users, and implementing controls without degrading other services.