The KIDS Act would create a broad federal framework for online child safety across social media platforms, video games, messaging features, and AI chatbots. It would require platforms to add age-verification steps for obscenity sites, default safety and parental controls on covered platforms, limits on direct and ephemeral messaging for minors, and disclosures and safeguards for chatbot use by minors. The bill also directs the FTC, HHS, and Commerce to run studies, education programs, and a new Kids Internet Safety Partnership, while making the FTC the main enforcer. It would apply mainly to online services used by children and teens under 17, with some requirements taking effect 90 days, 180 days, or 1 year after enactment depending on the subtitle.
What This Bill Does
- Covered adult-content platforms must use age-verification technology starting 1 year after enactment.
- Social media-like platforms must add safeguards, parental tools, and reporting systems for minors.
- Independent third-party audits are required 18 months after enactment and every year after that.
- Direct messaging would be banned for users under 13 and restricted for teens through parental controls.
- The FTC would enforce the law, with state attorneys general also able to bring civil actions.
Who This Bill Affects
For a typical user, this bill would mostly matter if you are a parent, a teen, or someone who uses major online platforms, video games, or chatbot services with minors in the household. If enacted, it would add new safety defaults, parental controls, disclosure screens, reporting tools, and in some cases direct-messaging limits or age-checking steps; it would also require platforms to police certain ads and harmful content aimed at minors. For the average adult user without minor children, the effect would be indirect but still noticeable through platform design changes, more notices, and potentially stricter access controls on some services.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- parents of minors Supporters argue the bill gives families practical controls over screen time, messaging, privacy, and purchases, instead of leaving parents to manage complex settings on their own. They say default protections for children and teens would better match how young people actually use social media, gaming, and chatbots.
- child-safety advocates Advocates say the bill responds to specific harms spelled out in the text, including sexual exploitation, threats of violence, compulsive usage, and exposure to drugs, alcohol, and gambling. They are likely to view the audit, disclosure, and reporting provisions as a way to force platforms to prove they are taking safety seriously.
- privacy and online-safety compliance teams Some companies and technologists may support the bill’s reliance on commercially available age-verification measures, third-party audits, and clear FTC consultation standards because it creates a more defined compliance structure. They may prefer a federal framework over a patchwork of state rules.
- civil liberties and free-expression groups Opponents are likely to argue that the bill could chill lawful speech and information access because it requires platforms to judge and limit content for minors, mandates disclosures, and regulates recommendation systems. They may also object to the breadth of preemption and the risk that platforms over-block content to avoid liability.
- encryption and security advocates Critics may worry that some age-verification, parental-control, and messaging requirements create pressure to weaken privacy protections or build intrusive identity systems, even though the bill says it should not require government ID and should not override strong encryption. They may view the technical compliance burden as a risk to secure communications.
- online platform operators Platforms may argue that the bill would force expensive product redesigns, recurring audits, and complex moderation systems across many features, including chat, recommendations, and ad targeting. Smaller services in particular may say the obligations are hard to implement consistently while still preserving user experience and innovation.
Key Implications
-
““adopt and utilize commercially available technology verification measures””
Adult-content platforms would need an age-screening system that tries to determine whether a user is more likely than not a minor. The bill also says a user’s self-certification alone is not enough and that platforms should not keep age-verification data longer than necessary.
-
““provide readily accessible and easy-to-use parental tools””
Parents of minors would get controls over privacy settings, purchases, screen time, and some recommendation systems. The practical effect is a stronger parent-facing dashboard model for platforms used by children and teens.
-
““may not offer... any ephemeral messaging feature””
Services that allow disappearing messages would have to remove that feature for all covered users, which are minors under the bill’s definitions. That is a major product restriction for platforms whose messaging tools are built around disappearing chats.
-
““disclose... The chatbot is an artificial intelligence system and not a natural person””
Chatbot providers would have to clearly tell minors they are talking to AI, not a human. The disclosure must appear at the first interaction and again if a minor asks whether the chatbot is AI, which is meant to reduce deception and confusion.
-
““advise a covered user... to take a break... after 3 hours””
Chatbots used by minors would have to nudge users after three continuous hours of interaction. This reflects concern about prolonged, emotionally intensive chatbot use and its possible effects on mental health.
Official Source & Bill Facts
BillBoard checks this page against public Congress.gov metadata, then adds plain-English analysis where available.
- Bill
- HR 7757
- Congress
- 119th Congress
- Official title
- KIDS Act
- Policy area
- Technology
- Latest action
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. (June 29, 2026)
- Last updated
- June 30, 2026
Latest Status
June 29, 2026
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Related Bills
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.