Summary#
This bill would require certain online businesses that publish a lot of sexual content to block minors from seeing that content by checking users’ ages. Covered sites must make people show a digital ID or use a commercial age-verification system before they can access such material. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would write rules and enforce the law, the Justice Department could bring criminal charges for knowing violations, and parents or others could sue.
- Main change: Sites that knowingly publish or distribute content where more than one-third is judged “sexual material harmful to minors” must verify that anyone trying to view that content is 18 or older.
- Sites may use a digital ID, a commercial age-verification system, or hire a third party to do the checks.
- Sites and their third-party verifiers may not keep or sell the information they collect for verification.
- Violations are treated as unfair or deceptive acts under the FTC’s authority; the FTC will make rules and enforce them.
- The Justice Department may pursue criminal penalties for knowing violations (fines and possible imprisonment). Individuals, including parents, may bring civil lawsuits and seek damages.
- The bill says internet service providers, search engines, and cloud providers are not liable just for giving access or connections to a covered site.
What it means for you#
- Publishers and websites that host sexual content: If your site knowingly and intentionally posts material where more than one-third is sexual material harmful to minors, you must block minors from accessing that material. You must require users to provide digital identification or verify age through an approved commercial system. You may hire a third party to do this. You may not retain or sell the verification data you collect.
- Social media platforms: The bill’s definition of commercial entity explicitly includes social media. Platforms that meet the “greater than one-third” test would be subject to the verification rules.
- Users (adults): Adults trying to access affected content may have to provide a digital ID or pass an age-check before seeing it.
- Minors and parents: Minors would be blocked from accessing qualifying sexual content if sites follow the law. Parents or guardians may sue a covered site for violating the law on behalf of a minor.
- Internet service providers, search engines, and cloud providers: These providers cannot be held to have violated this law solely for providing access or connections to a covered site. That means basic connectivity or search access alone is not a violation under this bill.
- Company officers and employees: The bill includes officers, directors, and employees of a covered commercial entity in the definition of covered persons while performing duties for the entity, potentially exposing them to enforcement actions tied to the entity’s conduct.
- Government agencies: The FTC must write rules and report to Congress every three years. The Justice Department may open criminal investigations and prosecute knowing violations.
Expenses#
No publicly available information.
- This bill does not include a cost estimate or fiscal note in the provided material.
- This would likely create compliance costs for covered sites: building or buying age-verification systems, contracting third parties, and changing site workflows.
- There could be enforcement costs for the FTC and the Department of Justice to investigate and pursue cases.
- Covered entities could face legal costs from civil suits brought by individuals and from defending government enforcement actions.
- Possible indirect costs include lost revenue if users decline to verify their age, and costs for small businesses that must implement new technical and privacy measures.
Proponents' View#
- The bill appears intended to reduce minors’ access to sexual material on the internet by requiring age checks for sites that publish large amounts of such material.
- A possible argument for the bill is that clear rules and enforcement powers (FTC rules, criminal penalties, and private lawsuits) create stronger incentives for sites to stop minors from seeing harmful content.
- The bill would let sites outsource verification to third parties, which could make compliance easier.
- The ban on retaining or selling collected verification data could be seen as a privacy protection for users.
Opponents' View#
- One concern is that the bill’s key terms are vague: it leaves open how the FTC will decide whether more than one-third of a site’s content is “sexual material harmful to minors.” This could create uncertainty for publishers.
- The requirement to show digital identification or use transactional data could raise privacy and data-security concerns, even though the bill bars retaining or selling data. It does not clearly address whether sharing, temporary storage, or cross-checking of verification data is allowed.
- There may be practical and financial burdens on websites, especially smaller ones, to build or buy reliable age-verification systems.
- Criminal penalties, including possible imprisonment for responsible parties, are severe and may raise questions about when an entity is treated as having “knowingly” violated the law.
- The bill could affect anonymous access and lawful adult privacy online; it is unclear how adults who wish to remain anonymous would be accommodated.
- It is unclear how the law would interact with other existing laws or how enforcement will be carried out in practice.