Congress mandates parental controls in online games—but lets companies avoid age verification

What it does

This bill requires online video game companies to give parents tools to control who their children can communicate with in multiplayer games. These parental controls must be turned on by default for minors, easy to use, and can only be disabled by parents. The Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general can enforce the rule and sue companies that violate it.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is a straightforward regulatory mandate: game companies must provide parental communication controls. It is framed as consumer protection (child safety) and enforced through existing FTC authority and state attorney general powers.

What the text implies

• Preemption clause (final section) prevents states from imposing stricter parental-control requirements, potentially capping safety standards at the federal floor rather than allowing states to innovate or exceed.
• One-year implementation window may create compliance burden for smaller indie game studios with limited resources, potentially favoring larger publishers with existing infrastructure.
• Definition of 'know' includes 'willful disregard,' which may incentivize game companies to avoid age-verification systems to claim lack of actual knowledge of user age.
• No explicit requirement for age verification or identity confirmation; companies may satisfy the rule by offering controls without confirming who is actually a minor.

Who it affects

Parents and children gain meaningful safety tools to prevent unwanted contact from strangers in online games, addressing a documented harm (online predation, harassment). Game companies bear compliance costs but no direct financial penalty beyond enforcement, and the requirement is reasonable given the public-health risk.

Who stands to gain

• Large video game publishers (EA, Activision Blizzard, Take-Two, Microsoft Game Pass)
• Gaming platforms (Steam, Epic Games Store, PlayStation Network, Xbox Live)
• Parental-control software vendors (if outsourced compliance)

Named in the bill

Federal Trade Commission (FTC), State attorneys general, Online video game providers, Interactive online video games, Minors (under 18), Parents/legal guardians

Where it stands

2 cosponsors: 1 Democrats, 1 Republicans.

• Nov 21, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Nov 21, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade”
• Dec 11, 2025 — Markup held in committee · Congress.gov: “Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

11 lobbying clients named this bill on 17 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $14,875,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 27 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 92% of bills with at least one filing.

Thomas Kean, the sponsor, reported $1,220,477 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Google Client Services LLC — $6,920,000 on 2 filings
• American Association for Justice — $3,610,000 on 2 filings
• Entertainment Software Association — $2,810,000 on 2 filings
• News Media Alliance — $475,000 on 1 filing
• Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC — $380,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.