On Wednesday, August 6th, 2026, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee voted on five bills focused on online safety and artificial intelligence (AI), including the Shielding Children's Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net (SCREEN) Act and the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA).

The SCREEN Act, introduced by Senator Mike Lee (R–Utah), seeks to require pornography websites to block minors through stringent age verification measures that go beyond simple age attestation, mandating IP address verification. The bill argues that "shielding minors from access to online pornographic content is a compelling government interest" and that these measures are the "least restrictive means for Congress" to achieve this goal. However, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) cautions that such requirements would "force millions of adult internet users to give up their anonymity, privacy, and security before they access lawful speech." Despite these privacy concerns, the SCREEN Act received majority support in the committee but did not advance due to lack of quorum.

KOSA, under consideration since 2022, mandates that "covered online platforms" such as social media and video streaming services implement tools and safeguards to protect users under 17 years old.

Additionally, the committee advanced a bill requiring users under 18 to obtain parental consent before using chatbots, alongside another bill mandating AI companies to implement critical privacy safeguards on chatbots.

Representative Ruben Gallego (D–Ariz.) introduced the Parental Approval for Youth Social Media Act, which would require social media platforms to obtain parental consent for children creating or maintaining accounts and to verify users' ages and parental authorization before allowing minors access. Gallego cited France's ban on social media use for children under 15 as inspiration for this legislation.

Free speech advocates have warned that these bills could threaten online privacy and freedom by imposing duties on platforms to protect users from subjective reactions to constitutionally protected speech, a standard courts have historically rejected on First Amendment grounds.

Sources