On Wednesday, August 6th, 2026, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee voted on five bills addressing 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).

The SCREEN Act, introduced by Senator Mike Lee (R–Utah), seeks to require pornography websites to block minors through stringent age verification measures, including IP address checks. The bill asserts that "shielding minors from access to online pornographic content is a compelling government interest" and claims its measures are the "least restrictive means for Congress" to achieve this goal. However, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) cautioned that such verification would "force millions of adult internet users to give up their anonymity, privacy, and security before they access lawful speech." Despite these 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" such as social media and video streaming services implement 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, along with another bill that would compel 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. 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 concern that these bills impose duties on platforms to protect users from subjective reactions to constitutionally protected speech, a standard courts have historically rejected on First Amendment grounds.

Sources