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. The bill emphasizes that "shielding minors from access to online pornographic content is a compelling government interest" and claims its provisions are the "least restrictive means for Congress" to achieve this goal. However, the bill mandates verification beyond simple age attestation, requiring companies to verify IP addresses, a measure the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) warns would "force millions of adult internet users to give up their anonymity, privacy, and security before they access lawful speech." Despite privacy concerns, the SCREEN Act received majority support in the committee but did not advance due to lack of quorum.

KOSA, under consideration by Congress 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 and another bill demanding AI companies 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. The bill also mandates platforms to verify users' ages and parental authorization before allowing minors access. Gallego was reportedly inspired by France's ban on social media use for children under 15.

Free speech advocates have expressed concerns that these bills could threaten online privacy and freedom. The EFF highlighted that the legislation imposes what courts have historically refused on First Amendment grounds: a duty to protect listeners from subjective, unknowable reactions to constitutionally protected speech.

Sources