Social media sites are transforming not only the daily lives of consumers, but also how companies interact with consumers. Here at Morrison Foerster, across all of our practice groups, we are seeing complex, cutting-edge legal issues arising out of social media. As with the Internet boom during the mid-to-late 1990s, social media is generating new legal questions at a far faster pace than the law’s ability to provide answers to such questions. In an effort to stay on top of these emerging issues, and to keep our clients and friends informed of new developments, Morrison Foerster publishes this blog devoted to the law and business of social media.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

sociallyaware-abajournalweb100-1

Aaron is the chair of the firm’s Technology Transactions Group and co-chair of the Interactive + Digital Media Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals.Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data- and technology-intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud-based technology, digital media (social media, AR/VR, gaming, streaming media, AdTech), AI, healthcare, consumer electronics, e-commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on branding and marketing, trademark licensing, and content-related transactions, as well as the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin-offs, and private equity investments.He has represented clients such as Autodesk, Meta, OpenAI, Splunk, Konami, Kaiser Permanente, SoftBank, Visa, and Yahoo, among others.Aaron has been recognized by numerous publications for his work on market-defining technology transactions. He is currently ranked by Chambers USA for “Technology Transactions.”Aaron also serves as co-editor of Socially Aware, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics. Aaron is also a sought-after speaker on new and emerging areas of law, and is a frequent presenter and panelist at conferences and legal services programs. In addition to his active practice, Aaron regularly provides pro bono assistance to various nonprofit and charitable organizations such as Common Sense Media and the Starlight Children’s Foundation. He is a member of the board of directors of California Lawyers for the Arts.While in law school at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, Aaron served as executive editor of the California Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. Following law school, Aaron served as law clerk to the Honorable William H. Orrick and the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins, both United States District Judges for the Northern District of California.

rubin_aaron_blog_150x150.png

rubin_aaron_common_640x280.jpg

rubin_aaron_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

rubin_aaron_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

rubin_aaron_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

We know trademarks. With a team of more than 25 lawyers, including Professor J. Thomas McCarthy, world-renowned author of the well-respected McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, we are a one-stop practice for guarding valuable business assets.

Trademark

Band 1: Intellectual Property: Trademark, Copyright & Trade Secrets, California

Firm to Watch: Intellectual Property; Trade Marks, Copyright And Design

Firm to Watch: Intellectual Property: Trademarks: Non-Contentious

Silver: Firms: Enforcement and Litigation, California 

Bronze: Firms: Prosecution and Strategy, California

Aaron is the chair of our Technology Transactions Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals. Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data– and technology–intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud computing, AR/VR, AI, gaming, healthcare, consumer electronics, social media, e–commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin–offs, and private equity investments.

Aaron P. Rubin

Lawrence Gallick is of counsel in the firm’s Austin office and a member of the Technology Transactions Group.Lawrence focuses his practice on technology transactions and licensing matters. His diverse experience includes advising on SaaS agreements, cross-licensing agreements, research and collaboration agreements, development agreements, and distribution agreements. He counsels a broad range of companies across the software, hardware, life sciences, biotech and FinTech spaces, as well as other entities including universities.He advises clients in connection with general corporate matters including contract negotiations, and leasing and technology placement agreements.Lawrence also serves as co-editor of <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/" target="_blank">Socially Aware</a>, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics.Prior to joining the firm, Lawrence was counsel at another major law firm. Before earning his law degree, Lawrence was a web consultant, project manager, and web developer in Portland, Oregon, where he managed and consulted on projects using industry methodologies and performed custom development and integration of content management systems.Lawrence was named a Super Lawyers “Rising Star” in 2015 and 2018–2022, and is licensed in both California and New York. Lawrence earned his J.D. from the University at Buffalo School of Law, where he was the electronic systems editor for the Buffalo Law Review and awarded the ABA-BNA Award for Excellence in the Study of Intellectual Property Law.

gallick_lawrence_blog_150x150.png

gallick_lawrence_common_640x280.jpg

gallick_lawrence_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

gallick_lawrence_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

gallick_lawrence_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Lawrence Gallick

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster.Anthony advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. He regularly advises companies on the IP aspects of their M&A transactions. His clients include technology, digital media and content for television and music, financial services, and communications companies with diverse intellectual property assets and issues.His practice focuses on the legal aspects of developing, licensing, and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts, including outsourcing transactions, as well as content and data licenses. He regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to licensing and commercialization of digital media and content, digital content that is distributed over the Internet or streamed, mobile applications and social media, as well as the licensing of recorded music for distribution via digital platforms. Anthony is also experienced with issues relating to open-source software, software development, artificial intelligence and machine learning, cloud-based technology, and protection of proprietary information.Anthony has extensive experience working on matters involving disruptive technologies, such as blockchain. He has helped fintech clients with general intellectual property issues in connection with terms of service for online financial products and services.Anthony is an integral part of the outside pro bono legal team for nonprofit organizations based in New York, including advising clients on legal issues regarding entertainment, social media, privacy rights, and the negotiation of outsourcing and service agreements. Anthony received his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 2009. He received his B.S. from Cornell University in 2004.

ramirez_anthony_blog_150x150.png

ramirez_anthony_common_640x280.jpg

ramirez_anthony_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

ramirez_anthony_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

ramirez_anthony_social_600x600.jpg

Our M&A lawyers represent Fortune 500 companies, private equity firms, investment banks, and privately-held companies in their most high-profile and complex mergers and acquisitions.

Mergers + Acquisitions

M&A Lawyers & Capabilities

Ranked for M&A: Foreign Firms in Singapore

Ranked for Global Corporate/M&A 

Ranked in the “Elite” Category of Corporate/M&A – Nationwide

Ranked for Corporate/M&A – Northern California

Ranked Band 1 for California Corporate/M&A: Deals in Asia

Ranked in the “Highly Regarded” Category of New York Corporate/M&A

Ranked in the “Elite” Category of Corporate/M&A: International

Ranked Band 1 for Corporate/M&A in Japan

Ranked for Corporate/M&A: International in Singapore

Ranked for Corporate/M&A: Hong Kong-based (International Firms)

Ranked for Corporate/M&A: Mid-Market in Germany

Awarded Deal of the Year for Imerys Joint Venture with British Lithium

Two MoFo Japan Deals Shortlisted for M&A Deal of the Year (Premium)

Two MoFo China Deals Shortlisted M&A Deal of the Year (Premium and Midsize)

Five MoFo Lawyers Named to M&A Powerlist

Named a Leading Firm for M&A

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster. He advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. His clients include technology, media, and communications companies with considerable intellectual property assets. His practice focuses on the legal aspects of licensing and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts. He also regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to mobile applications and social media.

Anthony M. Ramirez

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header.jpg

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

News and Announcements

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides a data-driven look at the Federal Circuit.

Federal Circuitry

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech

Mofo Tech

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insight

Government Contracts Insights

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

MoFo’s Socially Aware blog provides timely updates and analysis of the many complex and cutting-edge legal and business issues arising out of social media.

Socially Aware

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Socially Aware Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

Never miss a post from Socially Aware. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

The Law and Business of Social Media

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Web Scraping

Advertising

Antitrust

Arbitration

Artificial Intelligence

Asia

Autonomous Vehicles

Bankruptcy

Big Data

Blockchain

Class Actions

Cloud Computing

Compliance

Contracts

COPPA

Copyright

Crowdsourcing

Cyberbullying

Cybersecurity

Data Security

Defamation

Digital Content

Disappearing Content

Discovery

DMCA

E-Commerce

E-Discovery

E-Personation

Electronic Contracts

Employment Law

Endorsement Guides

Ephemeral Messaging

Ethics

European Union

Event

Fair Use

FDA Regulations

Financial Institutions

First Amendment

Fraud

Free Speech

GDPR

Hacking

Influencer Marketing

Infographic

Internet of Things

Investment Management Law

JOBS Act

Labor Law

Litigation

Live streaming

Marketing

Mobile

Online Contracts

Online Endorsements

Online Promotions

Online Reviews

Patent

Privacy

Product Liability

Protected Speech

Right of Publicity

Right To Be Forgotten

Section 230 Safe Harbor

Securities Law

Social Media Policy

Statistics

Status Updates

Stored Communications Act

Supreme Court

Terms of Use

UK High Court

User-Generated Content

Wearable Computers

Topics

Blog - Editors

Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

More

Lawrence W. Gallick

Social Links: Statehouse v. Smartphone

Federal Court Enjoins California Teen Privacy Law . . . Again

All Your Sale Are Belong to Us - Mitigating IP and Payments Risk in In-Game Economies (Part II – User-Generated Content and In-Game Payment Models)

A New California Digital Content Law Establishes New Requirements for Advertisers and Vendors

California’s Assembly Bill 587 Loses Key Provisions After Legal Challenge from X

LinkedIN

Newsom Vetoes AI BillCalifornia Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB1047" target="_blank">SB-1047</a>. The controversial bill was intended to establish safety guidelines for artificial intelligence models and would have been the first significant piece of state AI legislation in the country. Though it had many <a href="https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2024-09-24/mark-hamill-jane-fonda-joseph-gordon-levitt-sign-letter-in-support-of-ai-safety-bill-sb-1047" target="_blank">high-profile supporters</a>, the Governor ultimately felt the bill went too far and would hamstring the state’s growing AI industry. In a <a href="https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/SB-1047-Veto-Message.pdf" target="_blank">statement to the Senate</a>, Newsom wrote: “While well-intentioned, SB-1047 does not take into account whether an AI system is deployed in high-risk environments, involves critical decision-making or the use of sensitive data. Instead, the bill applies stringent standards to even the most basic functions — so long as a large system deploys it. I do not believe this is the best approach to protecting the public from real threats posed by the technology.” He also announced that the state will partner with several industry insiders, including <a href="https://profiles.stanford.edu/fei-fei-li" target="_blank">Dr. Fei-Fei Li</a> (who opposed the legislation), to develop guardrails around powerful AI models. State Senator Scott Wiener, who introduced the original bill, has <a href="https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/technology/why-gavin-newsom-veto-just-beginning-of-ai-safety-fight/article_dd1dedb8-7f89-11ef-9510-6f396710820a.html" target="_blank">vowed to continue</a> the fight.AI technology is evolving far too quickly for reactive legislation. Will lawmakers emerge who understand the intricacies and implications of artificial intelligence, but also have the political clout to push proactive bills through legislatures? That’s a lot to ask of anyone. Time will tell.SB-976 Becomes Law in CaliforniaThere’s no shortage of news coming out of California. Governor Newsom has signed the <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB976" target="_blank">Protecting Our Kids From Social Media Addiction Act</a> (SB-976) into law, mandating that algorithm-based social media feeds will be inaccessible to children without parental consent. The law also stipulates that social media entities may not send notifications to children overnight or during school hours without express parental permission. The state attorney general is now tasked with outlining a process by 2027 to determine if users are children, which will certainly be controversial. This bill is very similar to <a href="https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S7694/amendment/A" target="_blank">legislation recently passed in New York</a> and may be a harbinger of things to come on the national stage. As we’ve <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/state-social-media-laws-targeted-at-teens-face-opposition" target="_blank">previously reported</a>, parental consent rules run the risk of isolating vulnerable teens, while age-verification requirements may trigger privacy, bias, accuracy, and other concerns (including litigation). We’ll continue to pay close attention as this unfolds.California Deepfake Law BlockedShould political deepfakes be <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/02/california-law-block-political-deepfakes-00182277" target="_blank">protected as satire</a>? In Kohls v. Bonta, Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled that it should. Despite being signed into law on September 17, 2024, <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2839" target="_blank">AB-2839</a> was blocked in Judge Mendez’s court just two weeks later on grounds that the law does not meet the high standard for legislation that may burden protected speech. In rejecting the state’s argument that the law is akin to restrictions on defamation, Judge Mendez wrote: “YouTube videos, Facebook posts, and X tweets are the newspaper advertisements and political cartoons of today, and the First Amendment protects an individual’s right to speak regardless of the new medium these critiques may take.” Read <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.caed.453046/gov.uscourts.caed.453046.14.0.pdf" target="_blank">Judge Mendez’s extensive ruling</a> in its entirety<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.caed.453046/gov.uscourts.caed.453046.14.0.pdf">.</a>Privacy Rights Bill VetoedGovernor Gavin Newsom’s veto pen was working overtime as a number of tech-related bills recently landed on his desk. In addition to the aforementioned AI bill, Newsom vetoed <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB3048" target="_blank">AB-3048</a>. This law would have mandated that internet browsers and mobile operating systems provide Californians with a simple, single-click option to block the use and sharing of their data. Unsurprisingly, the bill was <a href="https://x.com/jason_kint/status/1834682846125944905" target="_blank">aggressively opposed</a> by major tech entities who argued that implementing such functionality presented too many technical hurdles and would be disruptive to operations for both the companies and the end users. Consumer and privacy rights activists <a href="https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/press_release/california-governor-vetoes-landmark-bill-for-privacy-rights/" target="_blank">strongly disagreed</a>. In his <a href="https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/AB-3048-Veto-Message.pdf" target="_blank">veto statement</a>, Governor Newsom wrote: “I am concerned… about placing a mandate on operating system (OS) developers at this time. No major mobile OS incorporates an option for an opt-out signal. By contrast, most internet browsers either include such an option or, if users choose, they can download a plug-in with the same functionality. To ensure the ongoing usability of mobile devices, it’s best if design questions are first addressed by developers, rather than by regulators.”Though AB-3048 <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB3048" target="_blank">overwhelmingly passed</a> in both chambers, the California Legislature has not overridden a gubernatorial veto <a href="https://prospect.org/politics/2023-10-16-missing-veto-override-california/" target="_blank">since 1980</a>. As tech is a major economic engine of the state, a veto seems extremely unlikely in this case – despite the Legislature having more than enough votes to do so.X Ordered to Honor Severance AgreementA former Twitter employee who was terminated and offered a reduced severance package after Elon Musk purchased the platform for $44 billion in 2022 <a href="https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/ex-twitter-worker-wins-fight-with-elon-musk-over-unpaid-severance-124092400092_1.html" target="_blank">has prevailed in arbitration</a>. The company, now rebranded as X, was ordered to pay the unnamed employee the full amount owed under the initial severance agreement. It’s possible that this settlement may result in additional severance adjustments for the more than 2,000 former Twitter employees who have filed arbitration grievances after allegedly being denied their contractually agreed severance. Legendary Los Angeles <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ey5agy1blc&list=OLAK5uy_kBru2bFCew4EFmAoCTtT_XrydeTIPT4G0" target="_blank">punk band X</a> was unavailable for comment.

Social Links: Going Back to Cali

Lawrence Gallick is of counsel in the firm’s Austin office and a member of the Technology Transactions Group.

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster. Anthony advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. He regularly advises companies on the IP aspects of their M&A transactions.











Anthony Ramirez

Aaron is the chair of the firm’s Technology Transactions Group and co-chair of the Interactive + Digital Media Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals.

Aaron Rubin

Social Links: Going Back to Cali

California Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed SB-1047. The controversial bill was intended to establish safety guidelines for artificial intelligence models and would have been the first significant piece of state AI legislation in the country. 

In case you haven’t noticed, state legislatures have been hard at work drafting, passing, and trying to pass laws that govern minors’ use of social media. Several states have passed laws requiring social media companies to implement certain policies, including age verification and parental consent for use of their platforms. Lawmakers in other states have introduced similar laws that are currently working their way through the legislative process and may be enacted soon. Below is a roundup of pending or enacted laws introduced in recent months.These enacted laws and in-process bills show a broad state-level trend towards efforts to hold social media companies responsible for minors on their platforms. Common themes include age verification and parental consent, but these are certainly not universal, and there are a variety of other requirements, making compliance an interesting question. As noted below, several of these laws have already been challenged in court. As the laws begin to take effect, companies will need to implement new policies and procedures to ensure platforms are compliant despite an ever-changing legislative and judicial backdrop.<a href="https://www.akleg.gov/basis/Bill/Text/33?Hsid=HB0254A#:~:text=HB%20254%3A%20%22An%20Act%20relating,to%20minors%20on%20the%20Internet.%22" target="_blank">Alaska House Bill 254</a>, which was <a href="https://alaskabeacon.com/2024/04/26/alaska-house-approves-social-media-ban-for-young-kids-online-pornography-id-checks-for-all/" target="_blank">passed in the House</a> on April 26, 2024 and now advances to the Senate, would prohibit children under age 14 from using social media, require parents to sign off on children aged 14 and 15 using social media, and require providers of internet pornography to verify that viewers are at least 18 years old.Arkansas’ <a href="https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/Detail?id=SB396&ddBienniumSession=2023%2F2023R" target="_blank">Social Media Safety Act</a>, first introduced in March 2023, would require age verification of users by social media companies and parental consent for minors using such platforms. However, in September 2023, a federal judge <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/01/business/arkansas-social-media-age-verification/index.html" target="_blank">blocked the law</a> from going into effect while a lawsuit brought by NetChoice is resolved.California is seeing movement on several social media laws. First, the state adopted the <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2273&showamends=false" target="_blank">Age-Appropriate Design Code Act</a> in September 2022, requiring platform providers to make default privacy settings provide a “high level” of privacy, assess whether their platforms could harm children, and use age-appropriate language on their platforms. The law was subsequently <a href="#" target="_blank">#</a><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/18/23879489/california-age-appropriate-design-code-act-blocked-unconstitutional-first-amendment-injunction">blocked by a federal judge</a> in September 2023 in a lawsuit brought by NetChoice. Second, the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction bill, introduced on January 29, 2024, would prohibit platforms from providing an “addictive social media feed” or pushing notifications during school and overnight hours to minors without parental consent. Third, the pending <a href="https://trackbill.com/bill/california-senate-bill-1444-let-parents-choose-protection-act-of-2024/2520714/#:~:text=The%20bill%20would%20prohibit%20the,the%20account%20with%20the%20large" target="_blank">Let Parents Choose Protection Act</a>, introduced on February 16, 2024, would require providers of “large social media platforms” to make available to certain safety software providers a set of application programming interfaces (APIs) that allow them to monitor children’s activities.Colorado has two new social media laws. <a href="https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1136" target="_blank">Introduced in January 2024</a>, <a href="https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024A/bills/2024a_1136_rer.pdf">HB 24-1136</a> would require social media companies to push notifications to minors who have spent a certain amount of time on social media platforms at certain hours to help them understand the effects of using social media. <a href="https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024A/bills/2024a_158_01.pdf">Introduced in February 2024</a>, <a href="https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024A/bills/2024a_158_01.pdf" target="_blank">Senate Bill 24-158</a> would require social media companies to verify the age of users, provide certain tools to parents and minors, and notify minors about harms of social media use.Connecticut updated its <a href="https://www.cga.ct.gov/2023/ACT/PA/PDF/2023PA-00056-R00SB-00003-PA.PDF" target="_blank">Data Privacy Act</a> to <a href="https://www.bloomberglaw.com/bloomberglawnews/in-house-counsel/XCDTIMES000000?bna_news_filter=in-house-counsel#jcite" target="_blank">require social media platforms</a> to remove minors’ accounts when requested and prohibit such platforms from processing minors’ personal data. The changes will come into effect on July 1, 2024.As we previously <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/social-links-april-2024" target="_blank">discussed</a>, Florida enacted <a href="https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/3" target="_blank">HB 3</a> on March 25, 2024, requiring social media companies to prohibit minors under age 14 from holding accounts, allowing parents to decide if 14- and 15-year-olds can have accounts, and requiring “inappropriate” websites to verify the age of minor users.Georgia enacted SB 351 on April 23, 2024, which <a href="https://www.bloomberglaw.com/bloomberglawnews/states-of-play/XFHLJFOS000000?bna_news_filter=states-of-play#jcite" target="_blank">requires children under 16</a> to get parental consent to create social media accounts, prohibits social media use on school devices, requires pornography sites to verify users are at least 18 years old, and requires education on social media use.The Iowa House approved pending <a href="https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=HF2523" target="_blank">House File 2523</a> on March 6, 2024. The bill would prohibit minors under age 18 from creating accounts on social media platforms without permission from a parent or guardian who can also monitor their activity.<a href="https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/24rs/hb450.html" target="_blank">House Bill 450</a> was introduced in the Kentucky House on February 1, 2024. It would require social media companies to verify that users are at least 18 years old and require parental consent for users under age 18. It would also allow parents to view their children’s online activity.Louisiana enacted the <a href="https://legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?s=23RS&b=SB162&sbi=y" target="_blank">Secure Online Interaction and Age Limitation Act</a> on <a href="https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/24rs/hb450.html" target="_blank">June 28, 2023</a>, which requires social media platforms to verify user age, get parental consent for minors to open accounts, allow parents to supervise minors’ accounts, and prevent unwanted messages from adults to minors. It would also prohibit use of minors’ personal information to display advertisements and unnecessary collection of data from minors.On May 9, 2024, Maryland enacted the <a href="https://marylandkidscode.com/" target="_blank">Maryland Kids Code</a>, which requires age-appropriate design of online products and prevents companies from using minors’ data for targeted advertising or providing addictive content.The pending Minnesota <a href="https://www.house.mn.gov/bills/Info/HF2257/93/2023/0" target="_blank">Age-Appropriate Design Code Act</a>, introduced in February 2023, would require online services likely to be accessed by children to implement certain design features and settings that prioritize privacy and data protection for minors.As we’ve <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/social-links-april-2024" target="_blank">noted</a> before, New York’s <a href="https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S7694" target="_blank">Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act</a>, introduced on October 13, 2023 and currently pending in the Senate, would prohibit social media companies from using certain addictive feed algorithms for minors without parental consent and prohibit platforms from sending nighttime notifications to minors. The state’s related <a href="https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S7695/amendment/A" target="_blank">Child Data Protection Act</a>, introduced on October 13, 2023, would prevent websites from collecting personal data from minors for advertising.North Carolina lawmakers introduced <a href="https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2023/H644" target="_blank">House Bill 644</a> in April 2023. If passed, the bill would require social media companies to verify age to provide age-appropriate content for minors and prohibit such companies from using a minors’ data for advertising and recommendations.The currently pending <a href="https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2023/H773" target="_blank">Let Parents Choose Protection Act</a> in North Carolina, introduced in April 2023, would require providers of large social media platforms to work with providers of safety software to allow them to monitor minors’ accounts.Ohio’s <a href="https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-1349.09" target="_blank">Social Media Parental Notification Act</a>, enacted in July 2023, would require social media platforms to get parental consent for users under age 16. It was <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4454087-federal-judge-blocks-ohio-law-requiring-parental-consent-for-social-media-use/" target="_blank">blocked by a federal judge</a> in February 2024 in a case brought by NetChoice (see our prior <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/court-prohibits-ohio-s-ag-from-enforcing-social-media-parental-notification-act" target="_blank">article</a> on this case).Oklahoma <a href="http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=hb3914&Session=2400" target="_blank">House Bill 3914</a>, which <a href="https://www.okhouse.gov/posts/news-20240314_7" target="_blank">passed in the House</a> on March 14, 2024 and is now in the Senate, would require social media companies to verify users are over age 18 and require parental consent for users who are 16 to 18 years old.The pending <a href="https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2023&sind=0&body=H&type=B&bn=2017" target="_blank">Pennsylvania House Bill 2017</a>, passed by the House on May 8, 2024, would require social media companies to verify users’ ages and obtain consent from a parent or guardian for minor users. If enacted, it would also allow parents to view the privacy settings of minors’ accounts.South Carolina’s <a href="https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess125_2023-2024/prever/4700_20240206.htm" target="_blank">Social Media Regulation Act</a>, passed by the House in February 2024 and currently in the Senate, would prohibit social media companies from allowing minors to have accounts without parental consent, require such companies to prevent adults from messaging minors’ accounts, develop policies to filter certain content from minors’ accounts, and prohibit advertising based on minors’ personal data.Tennessee enacted the <a href="https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB1891" target="_blank">Protecting Children from Social Media Act</a> on May 2, 2024. The law requires social media sites to verify the age of potential users and obtain parental consent for minor users. Such sites must also provide tools for parents to supervise minors’ accounts.Texas enacted the <a href="https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88R&Bill=HB18" target="_blank">Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment Act</a> (“SCOPE Act”) on June 13, 2023. This law requires certain “digital service providers” to verify the ages of users and limits such providers from collecting personal information from minors. Providers must also develop strategies to prevent minors’ exposure to harmful materials.As we previously <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/social-links-april-2024" target="_blank">reported</a>, Utah <a href="https://apnews.com/article/utah-tiktok-social-media-youth-aeaa2bd114d50249216d8d1567a97a2c" target="_blank">repealed and replaced</a> its <a href="https://socialmedia.utah.gov/" target="_blank">Social Media Regulation Act</a>, which was previously challenged by NetChoice, on March 7, 2024. The law requires social media companies to determine whether users are minors, but no longer requires parental consent. It also requires default privacy settings for minors’ accounts, limits data collection from minors, prohibits certain addictive functions, and allows parents to monitor children’s activity.<a href="https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2024/S.289" target="_blank">Vermont’s Kids Code</a>, passed in the Senate in March 2024 and currently in the House, would require covered companies to implement default privacy settings and provide certain protections to minors.West Virginia’s <a href="https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=5226&year=2024&sessiontype=rs" target="_blank">Child Social Media Protection</a> bill, introduced in January 2024 and currently pending, would prohibit minors from holding social media accounts without parental consent and require social media companies to verify the ages of account holders.

State Lawmakers Introduce Laws Governing Teen Use of Social Media

harris_lindsay_blog_150x150.png

Associate

Lindsay Harris