This week, the Senate may vote on a bill that would significantly restrict how social media platforms operate for users under 18, citing concerns over youth mental health and so-called “addictive” algorithms.
Backed by Attorney General William Tong, H. B. 6857 would prohibit platforms from showing algorithmically produced content to minors unless they verify the user’s age and obtain parental consent.
It also imposes default restrictions that limit social media use to one hour per day and block notifications between midnight and 6 a.m.
The defaults can be overridden by parents, but only after they opt out. The bill further mandates annual reporting requirements from platforms, including detailed breakdowns of how much time minors spend online.
Supporters say the law is necessary to combat online addiction, particularly among teenagers.
During his Feb. 10 press conference, AG Tong argued that companies like Meta, TikTok, and Snapchat use behavioral design — such as haptics, infinite scroll, and personalized algorithms — to hook children and keep them engaged.
Comparing it to past public health crises like Big Tobacco and the opioid crisis, AG Tong warned of “a growing mental health problem,” saying social media addiction is “fast becoming one of the major public health crises in our country.”
But Connecticut already has a law requiring online platforms to exercise “reasonable care” when offering services to minors. Companies must avoid exposing young users to heightened risks of harm — like unfair or deceptive practices, reputational damage, financial or physical injury, and invasions of privacy. In other words, the state has already asserted its role in protecting minors online.
That same law also bans targeted ads and the sale of user data for anyone under 18 without opt-in consent. It restricts addictive design features like infinite scrolling, blocks unsolicited messages from adults to unknown minors, and limits the collection of geolocation data.
As attorney Anthony Spinella explained in a CT News Junkie op-ed, this kind of overreach is “very likely preempted by Section 230” of the Communications Act — the federal law that shields platforms from liability for third-party content, including how it’s curated or displayed.
He also warned that the bill “violates core First Amendment principles and federal law in ways that should concern every parent and citizen.” Courts are already siding with that view. According to Spinella, federal judges in Ohio and Arkansas have struck down similar laws for attempting to micromanage how platforms recommend content.
In April, a federal judge in Ohio overturned the state’s Social Media Parental Notification Act, which would have required kids under 16 to get parental permission before signing up for social media or gaming apps. The law also would’ve forced companies to provide parents with their content moderation policies so families could see what kind of material might be censored on their child’s account.
U.S. District Court Judge Algenon Marbley called the law unconstitutional, writing that it “resides at the intersection of two unquestionable rights: the rights of children to a significant measure of freedom of speech and expression under the First Amendment, and the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children free from unnecessary governmental intrusion.”
A similar law in Arkansas met the same fate that month. The state’s Social Media Safety Act — passed in 2023 as Act 689 — required all users, including adults, to verify their ages to open or maintain a social media account.
For minors, the law also mandated explicit parental consent. But U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks permanently blocked it, ruling that the law violated the First Amendment by restricting access to lawful speech without being narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
“If the legislature’s goal in passing Act 689 was to protect minors from materials or interactions that could harm them online, there is no evidence that the Act will be effective in achieving that goal,” Brooks wrote.
These rulings weren’t narrowly adjudicated. Courts across the country are making it clear that the First Amendment doesn’t disappear just because the content is digital or the users are young.
In a May 12 press release, Yankee Institute warned that H.B. 6857 would do more harm than good — both legally and financially.
“H.B. 6857 is a dangerous mix of big-government paternalism and unconstitutional policy,” said Carol Platt Liebau, President of Yankee Institute. “It’s the kind of legislation that may sound good in headlines, but it doesn’t survive legal scrutiny — and it comes at great cost to Connecticut taxpayers.”
“Parents — not politicians — should be deciding what their kids see online,” Liebau added. “This bill treats every household the same, no matter their values, needs, or choices.”
The potential legal fallout also raises budget concerns. “This bill would deplete legal funds our state simply doesn’t have,” she said. “We have an attorney general on record saying his office is under-resourced. Do we really want to pass legislation that’s all but guaranteed to end up in federal court?”
“There are better ways to protect kids online that respect both constitutional rights and family control,” Liebau concluded. “We support solutions like app store-level parental controls — tools that empower parents without growing government.”
