HB2294 would create the Virginia Social Media Regulation Act and fold violations of that new chapter into Virginia’s existing Consumer Protection Act. The bill defines “social media company” as an interactive computer service with at least five million account holders worldwide and imposes a set of obligations focused on Virginia resident minors. Those obligations include requiring parental consent for a minor to hold an account, verifying the age of Virginia account holders, and, for minor accounts, limiting direct messaging, search visibility, advertising, targeted recommendations, and the collection or use of personal information from the minor’s activity except as needed for legal compliance.
The bill also gives parents or guardians access to a minor’s account, including posts and messages, and allows them to control or remove a nighttime access restriction from 10:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. It further prohibits a social media company from allowing a minor to bypass those restrictions. In addition, the bill would bar social media companies from using practices, designs, or features that they know or should know could cause addiction in minor users, while providing an affirmative defense if the company conducts quarterly audits and promptly corrects problematic features. Civil penalties for violations would be substantial, including a $250,000 penalty per addictive practice or feature and up to $2,500 per affected minor, with penalties paid to the Literary Fund.
As drafted, the bill would amend Virginia Code § 59.1-200 to add violations of the new chapter as prohibited practices under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. That means enforcement would run through existing consumer-protection mechanisms, expanding the reach of the VCPA to cover social media platform conduct directed at minors. The bill would therefore affect large social media platforms operating in Virginia, especially those with substantial user bases, and would create new compliance, verification, parental-access, and product-design obligations.
The available context does not include committee testimony or recorded votes, so there is no documented public debate in the provided materials. Based on the bill’s subject matter and structure, the measure appears aimed at protecting minors online and limiting addictive platform features, suggesting a generally consumer- and child-protection-oriented purpose. At the same time, the bill’s broad restrictions on platform design, advertising, and data use would likely raise operational and legal concerns for social media companies, particularly around age verification, parental access, content-neutral design requirements, and the scope of what counts as an addictive feature.
The main points of contention likely center on privacy, First Amendment issues, feasibility of age verification, and whether the state can regulate platform design in the manner proposed. Another likely issue is the bill’s breadth: it applies to major platforms, imposes detailed restrictions on minors’ accounts, and creates significant penalties, which could be viewed as either necessary safeguards or as overly intrusive regulation of online services.
HB2294 would add a new Chapter 58 to Title 59.1 and amend § 59.1-200 so that any violation of the new social media chapter is treated as a prohibited practice under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. The bill would impose new duties on large social media companies regarding minor account holders, including parental consent, age verification, limits on messaging and advertising, parental access, nighttime access restrictions, and restrictions on data collection and recommendation features. It would also authorize civil penalties and direct enforcement through existing consumer-protection remedies, with penalties paid to the Literary Fund.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative support or opposition in the supplied materials. The bill’s text reflects a protective, regulatory approach aimed at safeguarding minors from harmful social media practices, suggesting a pro-consumer and child-safety rationale. At the same time, the breadth of the obligations and penalties suggests the measure would likely draw concern from technology companies and civil-liberties advocates.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s age-verification mandate, parental-access requirements, restrictions on direct messaging and targeted content, and the prohibition on platform practices that could cause “addiction” in minors. Social media companies would likely object to the compliance burden and the vagueness or breadth of the addiction standard, while supporters would likely emphasize child safety, parental control, and limits on data exploitation. Privacy and constitutional concerns, especially around speech and platform design regulation, are also likely to be central points of dispute.