On Wednesday, August 6th, 2026, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee voted on five bills focused on online safety and artificial intelligence (AI). Among these were the Shielding Children's Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net (SCREEN) Act and the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), both designed to protect minors but criticized by free speech advocates for threatening online privacy and freedom.

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 asserts 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, simple age attestation, such as entering a birthday, is deemed insufficient; companies must also verify IP addresses. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) warned 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 a lack of quorum.

KOSA, under consideration by Congress since 2022, mandates that "covered online platforms" including social media and video streaming services implement safeguards to protect users under 17. Additionally, the committee advanced bills requiring users under 18 to obtain parental consent before using chatbots and compelling AI companies to implement critical privacy protections on these platforms.

Representative Ruben Gallego (D–Ariz.) introduced the Parental Approval for Youth Social Media Act, which would require social media providers 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 cited France's ban on social media use for children under 15 as inspiration for the legislation.

Free speech advocates argue that these bills impose duties on platforms to protect users from subjective and unknowable reactions to constitutionally protected speech, a standard courts have historically rejected on First Amendment grounds.

Sources