Report - 2025 02 20 A32829 D281504 Bill Report 5708 Sbr Bft Ta 25

Summary

A Washington Senate Bill Report on SB 5708, an act relating to protecting Washington children online, as of February 13, 2025, prepared by staff of the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services & Trade. It lists sponsors Senators Frame, Wagoner, Alvarado, Hasegawa, Nobles, Salomon, Trudeau and Valdez, by request of Attorney General. The background section reviews COPPA, the federal COPPA 2.0 and KOSA bills, and two California laws, SB 976 and AB 2273, with the NetChoice challenges to them. The summary of the bill describes requirements for businesses whose online services are likely to be accessed by minors, covering age estimation, personal information, profiling, precise location information and dark patterns. The report closes with testimony against the bill and a list of persons testifying pro and con.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

                            SENATE BILL REPORT
                                  SB 5708

                                     As of February 13, 2025

Title: An act relating to protecting Washington children online.

Brief Description: Protecting Washington children online.

Sponsors: Senators Frame, Wagoner, Alvarado, Hasegawa, Nobles, Salomon, Trudeau and
    Valdez; by request of Attorney General.

Brief History:
     Committee Activity: Business, Financial Services & Trade: 2/13/25.


                                     Brief Summary of Bill
           • Specifies requirements for, and restrictions on, a business providing an
             online service, product, or feature likely to be accessed by minors,
             concerning age estimation, the collection and use of personal information
             and precise location information, profiling, the use of dark patterns,
             privacy, and notifications during specified timeframes.
           • Prohibits an operator of an addictive Internet-based service or
             application from providing addictive feeds to a user under certain
             circumstances.
           • Requires an operator of an addictive Internet-based service or application
             to provide certain options to all users.
           • Defines terms, provides applicability of the Consumer Protection Act,
             and provides construction and for severability.


SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, FINANCIAL SERVICES & TRADE

     Staff: John Kim (786-7453)




     This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative
     members in their deliberations. This analysis is not part of the legislation nor does it
     constitute a statement of legislative intent.

Senate Bill Report                              -1-                                             SB 5708
     Background: In recent years, at both the federal and state level, numerous pieces of
     legislation concerning social media and children have been enacted or proposed. According
     to the National Conference of State Legislatures, in 2023, 35 states and Puerto Rico
     addressed legislation concerning social media and children and 12 states enacted bills or
     adopted resolutions. In 2024, the United States Senate passed two pieces of legislation
     concerning online services and minors, but versions of those bills were not considered by
     the full House of Representatives during the 118th session of Congress.

     This discussion addresses some federal legislation and legislation enacted in the state of
     California in 2022 and 2024, as the current bill contains provisions that are substantially
     similar or identical to the 2022 and 2024 California laws. The California laws are currently
     under judicial review by a federal district court in California and the United States Court of
     Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals). The Ninth Circuit Court of
     Appeals has jurisdiction over federal judicial districts in nine states, including the state of
     Washington.

     Federal Legislation Concerning Online Services and Minors. Children's Online Privacy
     Protection Act of 1998. The federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998
     (COPPA) applies to the online collection of personal information of children under 13 years
     of age. It required the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to issue and enforce regulations
     concerning children's online privacy. In 2000, the FTC adopted the Children's Online
     Privacy Protection Rule (Rule), which has been subsequently revised in 2013.

     Under the Rule, websites and online services covered by COPPA must post privacy
     policies, provide parents with direct notice of their information practices, and get verifiable
     consent from a parent or guardian before collecting personal information from children.

     The Rule applies to operators of commercial websites and online services directed to
     children under the age of 13 that collect personal information. It applies to operators of
     sites and online services geared toward general audiences when they have actual knowledge
     they are collecting information from children under 13. Under the 2013 revisions, COPPA
     also applies to operators when they have actual knowledge they are collecting personal
     information from users of another site or online service directed to kids under 13. In certain
     circumstances, COPPA applies to advertising networks, plug-ins, and other third parties.

     Recent Federal Legislation. In July 2024, the United States Senate passed The Children and
     Teens' Online Protection Act (COPPA 2.0) and the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA).
     COPPA 2.0 would expand the scope of entities covered under COPPA and includes:
        • a requirement for verifiable consent by parents of children under 13 to collect data;
        • a prohibition against targeted marketing;
        • a right to content erasure;
        • information practices; and
        • a digital marketing bill of rights for minors.



Senate Bill Report                              -2-                                         SB 5708
     The United States Senate version of KOSA would establish a duty of care for online
     platforms to prevent and mitigate specified harms to children and requires platforms to
     provide options regarding information, disable or limit certain product features, and opt out
     of personalized algorithmic recommendations.

     In September 2024, the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce
     advanced its version of COPPA 2.0 and KOSA to the full House of Representatives for
     consideration, but the measures were not voted on by the full House of Representatives
     during the 118th session of Congress.

     2022 California Legislation and Pending Constitutional Challenge. In September 2022,
     California enacted AB 2273, entitled The California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act
     (AB 2273). Some provisions of AB 2273 that are substantially similar to or identical to the
     current bill include:




         • an age assurance requirement;
         • restrictions on profiling, the use of precise location information, and the use of dark
           patterns;
         • privacy requirements; and
         • definitions of terms including likely to be accessed by children or minors and an
           online service, product, or feature likely to be accessed by children or minors. The
           definition of a dark pattern in implementing regulations to AB 2273 is identical to the
           current bill.

     In December 2022, NetChoice, LLC (NetChoice), a trade association of online businesses,
     filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief concerning AB 2273 against the
     attorney general of California in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
     California (Northern California District Court). Arguments in the complaint included, in
     part, that AB 2273 violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
     Constitution as imposing viewpoint-, content-, and speaker-based restrictions on speech that
     did not meet various standards of scrutiny; that the bill used vague terms and provisions in
     violation of due process; that it violated the Commerce Clause as imposing undue burdens
     on interstate commerce; and that certain provisions were preempted by federal law.

     In September 2023, the Northern California District Court granted NetChoice's motion for a
     preliminary injunction against California's enforcement of AB 2273. In 2024, the Ninth
     Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the part of the injunction relating to a data protection
     impact assessment requirement but vacated the remainder of the injunction. In January
     2025, the Northern California District Court heard revised oral arguments on a second
     preliminary injunction motion by NetChoice.


Senate Bill Report                              -3-                                         SB 5708
     2024 California Legislation and Stay Pending Appeal in the United States Court of Appeals
     for the Ninth Circuit. In September 2024, California enacted SB 976, entitled Protecting
     Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act (SB 976). Some provisions of SB 976 that are
     substantially similar to the current bill include:




         • a prohibition on providing addictive feeds to minors;
         • restrictions on sending notifications to minors during specified time periods;
         • requirements for customization options; and
         • definitions of terms including an addictive feed and addictive Internet-based service
           or application.

     In November 2024, NetChoice filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief
     concerning SB 976 against the attorney general of California in the Northern California
     District Court. In its complaint, NetChoice stated that SB 976 regulates services offered by
     its members including Google, which owns and operates YouTube; Meta, which owns and
     operates Facebook and Instagram; Nextdoor; Pinterest; and X. Arguments in the complaint
     included, in part, that SB 976 violates the First Amendment as content-based and speaker-
     based regulations of speech that did not meet the standards of heightened or strict scrutiny.
      The complaint also argued that SB 976's central coverage definition of addictive Internet-
     based services or applications was unconstitutionally vague and violated free speech under
     the First Amendment and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

     In December 2024, the Northern California District Court granted a partial preliminary
     injunction, prohibiting California from enforcing provisions in SB 976 relating to
     restrictions on operators sending notifications to known or potential minors during specified
     time periods, and a requirement for operators to annually and publicly disclose certain
     information regarding minor users. The court's injunction otherwise permitted California to
     enforce the remainder of the law. In January 2025, NetChoice appealed the District Court's
     ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In January 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of
     Appeals granted a full injunction against the enforcement of the entirety of SB 976 while
     the appeal is pending. Oral arguments for the appellate case are scheduled for April 2025.

     Summary of Bill: Requirement for Certain Businesses to Estimate the Age of Minor Users
     or Apply Certain Protections to All Users. The bill requires a business that provides an
     online service, product, or feature likely to be accessed by minors to:
         • estimate the age of minor users with a reasonable level of certainty appropriate to the
           risks that arise from the data management practices of the business; or
         • apply the privacy and data protections afforded to minors to all consumers or users of
           the online, service, product, or feature.

     A minor is defined as an individual under 18 years of age who is located in Washington


Senate Bill Report                             -4-                                        SB 5708
     State.

     The term likely to be accessed by minors is defined to mean it is reasonable to expect, based
     on the following indicators, that the online service, product, or feature would be accessed by
     minors:
         • the online service, product, or feature is directed to children as defined by COPPA.
         • the online service, product, or feature is determined, based on competent and reliable
           evidence regarding audience composition, to be routinely accessed by a significant
           number of minors.
         • an online service, product, or feature that displays, provides, contains, or sells
           advertisements marketed to minors.
         • an online service, product, or feature that has design elements that are known to be of
           interest to minors including, but not limited to, games, cartoons, music, and
           celebrities who appeal to minors.
         • a significant amount of the audience of the online service, product, or feature is
           determined, based on internal company research, to be minors.

     The term online service, product, or feature excludes a broadband Internet access service or
     telecommunications service.

     Restrictions on the Collection and Use of Personal Information of Minors. A business that
     provides an online service, product, or feature likely to be accessed by minors may not use
     any personal information collected to estimate age or age range for any other purpose or
     retain that personal information longer than necessary to estimate age. Age assurance must
     be proportionate to the risks and data practice of an online service, product, or feature.
      Such a business may not collect, sell, share, or retain personal information from minors
     under the age of 13.

     Personal information is defined as information that identifies or is reasonably capable of
     being associated or linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular individual or individual's
     household. It includes, but is not limited to, data associated with a persistent unique
     identifier, such as a cookie ID, an IP address, a device identifier, or any other form of
     persistent unique identifier. It does not include publicly available information.

     A business that provides an online service, product, or feature likely to be accessed by
     minors may not take any of the following actions:
        • use the personal information of any minor in a way that the business knows, or has
          reason to know, is materially detrimental to the physical health, mental health, or
          well-being of a minor;
        • collect, sell, share, or retain any personal information that is not necessary to provide
          an online service, product, or feature with which a minor is actively and knowingly
          engaged; or
        • if the end user is a minor, use personal information for any reason other than a reason
          for which that personal information was collected, unless the business can


Senate Bill Report                              -5-                                          SB 5708
            demonstrate a compelling reason that use of the personal information is in the best
            interests of minors.

     Restriction on Profiling of Minors. Profiling is defined as any form of automated processing
     of personal information that uses personal information to evaluate certain aspects relating to
     an individual, including analyzing or predicting aspects concerning an individual's
     performance at work, economic situation, health, personal preferences, interests, reliability,
     behavior, location, or movements.

     A business that provides an online service, product, or feature likely to be accessed by
     minors may not profile a minor by default unless the business can demonstrate it has
     appropriate safeguards in place to protect minors and one of the following is true:
        • profiling is necessary to provide the online service, product, or feature requested and
          only with respect to the aspects of the online service, product, or feature with which
          the minor is actively and knowingly engaged; or
        • the business can demonstrate a compelling reason that profiling is in the best interests
          of minors.

     Restriction on the Collection and Use of Precise Location Information of Minors. Precise
     location information is defined as information derived from technology including, but not
     limited to, global positioning system level latitude and longitude coordinates or other
     mechanisms, that directly identifies the specific location of an individual with precision and
     accuracy within a radius of 1750 feet.

     A business that provides an online service, product, or feature likely to be accessed by
     minors may not:
        • collect, sell, or share any precise location information of minors by default unless the
          collection of that precise location information is strictly necessary for the business to
          provide the service, product, or feature requested, and then only for the limited time
          that the collection of precise location information is necessary to provide the service,
          product, or feature; or
        • collect any precise location information of a minor without providing an obvious sign
          to the minor for the duration of that collection that precise location information is
          being collected.

     Restriction on the Use of Dark Patterns on Minors. A dark pattern is defined as a user
     interface designed or manipulated with the substantial effect of subverting or impairing user
     autonomy, decision making, or choice.

     A business that provides an online service, product, or feature likely to be accessed by
     minors may not use dark patterns to lead or encourage minors to provide personal
     information beyond what is reasonably expected to provide that online service, product, or
     feature to forego privacy protections, or to take any action that the business knows, or has
     reason to know, is materially detrimental to the minor's physical health, mental health, or


Senate Bill Report                             -6-                                         SB 5708
     well-being.

     Requirements for Businesses Regarding Privacy of Minors. A business that provides an
     online service, product, or feature likely to be accessed by minors must take all of the
     following actions:
         • configure all default privacy settings provided to minors by the online service,
           product, or feature to settings that offer a high level of privacy unless the business can
           demonstrate a compelling reason that a different setting is in the best interests of
           minors;
         • provide any privacy information, terms of service, policies, and community standards
           concisely, prominently, and using clear language suited to the age of minors likely to
           access that online service, product, or feature;
         • if the online service, product, or feature allows the minor's parent, guardian, or any
           other individual or entity to monitor the minor's online activity or track the minor's
           location, provide an obvious signal to the minor when the minor is being monitored
           or tracked;
         • enforce published terms, policies, and community standards established by the
           business including, but not limited to, privacy policies and those concerning minors;
           and
         • provide prominent, accessible, and responsive tools to help minors, or if applicable
           their parents or guardians, exercise their privacy rights and report concerns.

     Prohibition on Providing Addictive Feeds to Minors. The bill provides it is unlawful for an
     operator of an addictive Internet-based service or application to provide an addictive feed to
     a user unless:
         • prior to January 1, 2026, the operator does not have actual knowledge that the user is
            a minor; or
         • commencing January 1, 2026, the operator has reasonably determined that the user is
            not a minor.

     An operator is defined as a person who operates or provides an Internet website, an online
     service, an online application, or a mobile application.

     An addictive Internet-based service or application is defined as an website, online service,
     online application, or mobile application including, but not limited to, a social media
     platform, that offers users or provides users with an addictive feed as a significant part of
     the service provided by that website, online service, online application, or mobile
     application.

     The bill excludes from the definition of an addictive Internet-based service or application:
        • an Internet website, online service, online application, or mobile application for
           which interactions between users are limited to commercial transactions or to
           consumer reviews of products, sellers, services, events, or places, or any combination
           thereof; or


Senate Bill Report                              -7-                                          SB 5708
         • an Internet website, online service, online application, or mobile application that
           operates a feed for the primary purpose of cloud storage.

     An addictive feed is defined as an Internet website, online service, online application, or
     mobile application, or a portion thereof, in which multiple pieces of media generated or
     shared by users are, either concurrently or sequentially, recommended, selected, or
     prioritized for display to a user based, in whole or in part, on information provided by the
     user, or otherwise associated with the user or the user's device, unless any of the following
     conditions are met, alone or in combination with one another:
         • the information is not persistently associated with the user or user's device, and does
            not concern the user's previous interactions with media generated or shared by others;
         • the information consists of search terms that are not persistently associated with the
            user or user's device;
         • the information consists of user-selected privacy or accessibility settings, technical
            information concerning the user's device, or device communications or signals
            concerning whether the user is a minor;
         • the user expressly and unambiguously requested the specific media or media by the
            author, creator, or poster of the media, or the blocking, prioritization, or
            deprioritization of such media, provided that the media is not recommended, selected,
            or prioritized for display based, in whole or in part, on other information associated
            with the user or the user's device, except as otherwise permitted by this chapter and,
            in the case of audio or video content, is not automatically played;
         • the media consists of direct, private communications between users;
         • the media recommended, selected, or prioritized for display is exclusively the next
            media in a preexisting sequence from the same author, creator, poster, or source and,
            in the case of audio or video content, is not automatically played; or
         • the recommendation, selection, or prioritization of the media is necessary to comply
            with the other requirements in the bill.

     Media is defined as text, audio, an image, or a video.

     Restrictions on Notifications to Minors During Specified Timeframes. Prior to January 1,
     2026, the bill provides it is unlawful for a business that provides an online service, product,
     or feature likely to be accessed by minors, between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., in
     the user's local time zone, and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., from Monday
     through Friday from September through May in the user's local time zone, to send
     notifications to a user if the business has actual knowledge that the user is a minor unless
     the operator has obtained verifiable parental consent to send those notifications.

     Commencing January 1, 2026, it is unlawful for a business that provides an online service,
     product, or feature likely to be accessed by minors, during the same timeframes, to send
     notifications to a user whom the business has not reasonably determined is not a minor
     unless the operator has obtained verifiable parental consent to send those notifications.



Senate Bill Report                              -8-                                         SB 5708
     Required Options for Users of an Addictive Internet-Based Service or Application. The
     operator of an addictive Internet-based service or application must provide a mechanism
     through which any user, whether or not they are a minor, may do any of the following:
         • limit their access to any addictive feed from the addictive Internet-based service or
           application to a length of time per day specified by the user;
         • limit their ability to view the number of likes or other forms of feedback to pieces of
           media within an addictive feed;
         • require that the default feed provided to the user when entering the Internet-based
           service or application be one in which pieces of media are not recommended,
           selected, or prioritized for display based on information provided by the user, or
           otherwise associated with the user or the user's device, other than the user's age or
           status as a minor; or
         • set their account to private mode, in a manner in which only users to whom the user is
           connected on the addictive Internet-based service or application may view or respond
           to content posted by the user.

     Applicability of the Consumer Protection Act. The bill provides that a violation of the
     chapter created by the bill is not reasonable in relation to the development and preservation
     of business and is an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce and an unfair method of
     competition for the purpose of applying the Consumer Protection Act.

     Statutory Construction. The bill provides the following in construing its provisions:
         • the chapter created by the bill does not restrict the ability of a business that provides
           an online service, product, or feature to comply with Washington State or federal law;
           or comply with a subpoena, warrant, court order, or other civil or criminal legal
           process, unless such compliance is otherwise prohibited by Washington State or
           federal law; or
         • the chapter created by the bill may not be construed as requiring the operator of an
           addictive Internet-based service or application to give a parent any additional or
           special access to, or control over, the data or accounts of their minor child; and
         • compliance with the chapter created by the bill by the operator of an addictive
           Internet-based service or application does not serve as a defense to any claim that a
           minor, or an individual who was a minor at the time of using the Internet-based
           service or application, might have against the operator of an addictive Internet-based
           service or application regarding any harm to the mental health or well-being of the
           minor.

     Severability. The bill provides that if any provision of this chapter or its application to any
     person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the chapter or the application of the
     provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.

     Appropriation: None.

     Fiscal Note: Requested on February 9, 2025.


Senate Bill Report                              -9-                                         SB 5708
     Creates Committee/Commission/Task Force that includes Legislative members: No.

     Effective Date: Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.

     Staff Summary of Public Testimony: PRO: This bill will significantly improve and
     protect the mental health of Washington's kids. The youth behavioral health crisis was well
     underway prepandemic, but it has only gotten worse over the last five years. The United
     States Surgeon General has highlighted the grave impact of social media on kids'
     developing brains, namely that children who spend more than three hours a day online face
     double the risk of mental health problems. Another study states that teenagers are spending,
     on average, 3.5 hours online a day. This is not as simple as parents just taking devices away
     from kids. It's not a fair fight between parents and social media company strategies to suck
     kids into continued interaction with their platforms. We know that these companies are
     targeting children with addictive algorithms. We know that more than half of the kids in
     Washington having depressive and anxiety episodes are not getting access to care. We could
     eliminate some of the need for that if we take action like this to help get kids offline.

     Up to 95 percent of teenagers and 40 percent of children between the ages of 8 and 12 visit
     social media sites. These groups are commonly exposed to extreme, inappropriate, and
     harmful content. The Office of the Attorney General would welcome federal legislation to
     address this vital matter, but Congress has so far not acted. We can't afford to wait and
     states need to lead the way on this.

     The Office of the Governor supports the passage of a strong social media bill to support our
     children in addressing anxiety, depression, difficulty with attention and focus, social
     isolation, and other mental health challenges. This bill takes a critical step in protecting
     Washington's children from the harms of exploitative online practices, addressing addictive
     feeds, strengthening data privacy protections, and ensuring greater transparency and
     safeguards for young users. Many platforms are designed with features that maximize
     engagement, making it increasingly difficult for young users to disengage. We must put
     safeguards in place to protect children from digital platforms that exploit their
     vulnerabilities and impact their well-being. We are ready to work with the committee to
     make adjustments and improvements to the bill as it moves forward.

     The Social Media Victims Law Center has found, based on interviews with thousands of
     children and parents and investigation of other records, harmful dependency due to product
     features intended to addict. Kids feel physically unable to stop using these products and
     blame their parents from keeping them from what they feel they need, very much like
     substance addiction. As for anxiety and depression, kids are not simply finding bad stuff
     online. We see kids who search TikTok for inspirational quotes and motivational speeches
     but get breakup and suicide content instead. The companies already use age estimation
     technologies and collect thousands of personal data points. They rely on age estimation and
     signaling for marketing and product development purposes. The bill would hold them
     accountable for what they already know.


Senate Bill Report                            - 10 -                                      SB 5708
     During my career, I've been responsible for developing content recommendation engines
     and advertising targeting algorithms similar to those referenced in the bill. Everything this
     bill requires is doable with today's technology using algorithms that have been published in
     the research literature. The bill puts the interest of children over company profits and gives
     parents the tools to partner with our kids on privacy or other concerns.

     I'm a student and minor as defined in the bill. I support the bill because we are in dire need
     of privacy protection. It is deceptive for hosts of online spaces, especially during your most
     vulnerable phase, to pry and store your information beyond your age range. It can be used to
     attack your insecurities and social engineer scams towards you. The bill addresses that by
     putting restrictions on the use of profiling and dark patterns.

     The Children's Alliance finds evidence that shows kids are using social media more than
     ever at school and late at night, and this use significantly increases their risk of depression
     and anxiety. The research shows limiting these influences can have up to 40 percent of the
     effect of a clinical intervention at improving emotional well-being at a fraction of the cost.
     The bill will limit these influences.

     My wife and I found that our son, in the last 30 days, visited an addictive feed site no fewer
     than 1858 times. The bill restricts the ability of companies to use trillion-dollar industry
     power, artificial intelligence, and programming to steal his attention from quality human
     interactions. This bill is the most cost-effective solution to the youth mental health crisis of
     all of the things considered in the Legislature this year.

     I'm here as a grieving father who lost his son to an accidental fentanyl overdose. My son
     was deeply immersed in social media. One platform's algorithm led him to normalized drug
     use and risky behavior. Its location-based features allowed strangers, including drug dealers
     and others, to see exactly where he was. He purchased what he believed was a percocet, but
     it was laced with fentanyl and took his life. The drug dealer couldn't be caught due to a lack
     of a digital trail. If you turn the algorithm off, our kids are safe.

     CON: The bills referenced in California, Florida, and Texas are locked in federal district
     court, with several pieces of the bills been questioned for their constitutionality. Beyond
     potential First Amendment violations, AB 2273 in California was found unconstitutional
     under the Dormant Commerce Clause because it's trying to regulate behavior at the state
     level that happens outside of state lines. It is the purview and job of the Federal Government
     to act on such cases. The Association of Washington Businesses has a number of other
     significant concerns with the bill, and I'm happy to reach out and try to work through some
     of those.

     TechNet agrees that protecting children is a top priority. The reason TechNet opposes this
     bill is we believe it is unconstitutional. The courts have repeatedly found that laws limiting
     a person's or company's free speech violates the First Amendment. The court in California


Senate Bill Report                             - 11 -                                        SB 5708
     found the Age-Appropriate Design Code Act violates the First Amendment by compelling
     online businesses to assess and mitigate potential harms to children. Maryland's law, which
     is consistent with California's law, has recently been challenged. The section of the bill
     requiring operators to limit access to feeds is compelled speech. In the United States
     Supreme Court case Moody v. NetChoice, the Supreme Court said that their choices about
     which messages are appropriate give the feed a particular expressive quality and constitute
     the exercise of protected editorial control. Clearly, this is in violation of the First
     Amendment.

     The Chamber of Progress is concerned the bill will compromise online privacy, prohibit
     online services from offering teenagers algorithmically curated feeds by default, and
     disproportionately harm Washington's at-risk youth. The age estimation requirement
     effectively requires covered companies to verify the identity and age for all users, a
     tremendous encroachment on individual privacy. The only ways to verify a user's age with
     certainty are with a government ID or biometric data. Estimating a user's age will require
     more data with greater cybersecurity risks. Many adults prefer not to share their identifying
     information with online services, creating a dilemma for adult users to turn over personal
     data to access protected speech or forego the online service entirely. We are concerned the
     ban on feeds to minors prevents platforms from personalizing user experiences in ways that
     foster engagement with beneficial content. Content curation allows platforms to downrank
     and remove unwanted interactions like coordinated racial- or gender-based harassment.

     Persons Testifying: PRO: Senator Noel Frame, Prime Sponsor; Matthew Huang; Jai
     Jaisimha, Transparency Coalition.ai; Adam Eitmann, Office of the Attorney General;
     Stephan Blanford, Children's Alliance; Reid Saaris; Laura Marquez-Garrett, The Social
     Media Victims Law Center; Taj Jensen; Taku Mineshita , Office of Governor Bob
     Ferguson.

     CON: Rose Feliciano, TechNet; Robert Singleton, Chamber of Progress; Morgan Irwin,
     AWB.

     Persons Signed In To Testify But Not Testifying: PRO: Nichol braboy; Jiadong Gu.




Senate Bill Report                            - 12 -                                      SB 5708


File and source

File

2025-02-20_a32829_d281504_bill-report-5708-sbr-bft-ta-25.pdf

Size

30,550 bytes

SHA-256

21b26f8ea65395a62230058ebe79390b4707fa1fd927ee7e7c0abf50f9ddb271

Our copy

2025-02-20_a32829_d281504_bill-report-5708-sbr-bft-ta-25.pdf

Original

app.leg.wa.gov