SB 278, the “Kids Off Social Media Act,” would create a federal framework restricting children’s and teens’ access to social media platforms. The bill would prohibit social media platforms from allowing accounts or profiles for users under age 13, require termination of existing accounts known to belong to children, and require deletion of children’s personal data subject to limited retention and portability provisions. It would also bar platforms from using personalized recommendation systems based on personal data for users under age 17, with narrow exceptions for limited data such as device type, language, location, and age. The bill preserves the ability to provide search results, chronological feeds, and safety-related filtering, and it expressly does not require age verification or age gating.
The bill also includes a school-focused title, the “Eyes on the Board Act of 2025,” which would amend the Children’s Internet Protection Act and the Communications Act to tie certain E-Rate broadband subsidies to school policies that block student access to social media platforms on supported devices and networks. Schools would have to certify that they are monitoring access and using technology protection measures, with phased compliance options, waiver provisions tied to procurement constraints, and an exemption for most libraries. In addition, the bill would require the FCC to maintain a public database of Internet safety policies submitted by schools and libraries.
If enacted, SB 278 would add new federal restrictions enforced primarily by the Federal Trade Commission, with state attorneys general also authorized to bring civil actions. It would treat violations as unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the FTC Act, and it would preempt conflicting state laws while allowing states to adopt stronger protections for children and teens. The bill also cross-references existing privacy laws, including COPPA and FERPA, and sets a one-year delayed effective date for the social media restrictions.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s sponsorship and committee outcome appears broadly supportive and bipartisan. The bill was introduced by a bipartisan group of senators and was reported by the committee without amendment, suggesting substantial agreement on the goal of limiting minors’ exposure to social media algorithms and school-based access. No committee transcript or recorded votes were provided, so there is no detailed public record here of floor debate or opposition.
The main points of contention likely center on how the bill defines social media platforms, how the knowledge standard would be applied, and whether the restrictions could affect legitimate educational, messaging, or content-discovery uses. Potential concerns also include privacy and implementation burdens, especially around compliance monitoring in schools and the interaction with existing federal privacy and education laws. The bill attempts to address some of those concerns by avoiding mandatory age verification and by carving out several categories of services, but those carve-outs and enforcement mechanisms could still be debated.
SB 278 would create new federal duties for social media platforms regarding minors, including account restrictions for children under 13, limits on algorithmic recommendation systems for users under 17, and data deletion obligations when child accounts are terminated. It would also amend federal education and communications law to condition certain school broadband subsidy use on blocking student access to social media platforms and to require public reporting of school Internet safety policies. The bill would be enforced by the FTC and state attorneys general, would preempt only conflicting state law, and would preserve stronger state protections where they do not conflict with the federal framework.
The bill appears to have a generally favorable and bipartisan reception. Its introduction by senators from both parties and its committee report without amendment indicate support for the bill’s child-safety objectives and for limiting social media exposure among minors. Because no transcripts or votes were provided, there is no direct record of opposition in the supplied materials, but the structure of the bill suggests the sponsors anticipated concerns about privacy, school implementation, and overbreadth and tried to narrow the scope through exceptions and compliance safeguards.
Likely areas of contention include the breadth of the definition of “social media platform,” the standard for determining whether a platform “knows” a user is underage, and whether the recommendation-system ban could interfere with ordinary content ranking or search functions. Schools and libraries may also object to the operational burden of compliance, monitoring, and certification requirements tied to federal broadband subsidies. Privacy advocates may scrutinize the bill’s enforcement and data-retention provisions, while education stakeholders may focus on whether the school-related restrictions could inadvertently limit legitimate instructional uses of online platforms.