Congress bans under-13s from social media, forces schools to block it or lose federal funding

What it does

This bill prohibits social media platforms from allowing users under 13 to create accounts and requires deletion of their data upon discovery. It bans personalized recommendation algorithms for users under 17 (with narrow exceptions for device type, language, location, and age). Title II requires schools receiving federal broadband subsidies to block student access to social media on school networks and certify compliance annually, with funding penalties for non-compliance.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is age-based access restriction and algorithmic limitation for minors on social media platforms, paired with a school-network blocking requirement tied to federal funding. This is regulatory intervention in platform design and school network policy, not a market subsidy or commemorative measure.

What the text implies

• Title II's school-blocking requirement may inadvertently restrict legitimate educational uses of platforms (e.g., teacher-led instruction, school announcements via Facebook/Instagram), forcing schools to implement broad filters that may over-block.
• The 'personalized recommendation system' definition in Title I is broad and may capture algorithmic features in educational platforms, learning management systems, or news aggregators if they collect personal data and derive revenue from advertising—creating compliance uncertainty.
• Schools face a two-year compliance window (first year to certify intent, second year to certify full compliance) before losing all E-rate funding; schools in rural or under-resourced districts may struggle to procure filtering technology in time.
• The bill requires platforms to determine age 'fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances' without mandating age verification, creating an enforcement standard that is vague and may incentivize platforms to over-delete accounts of ambiguous users.
• State attorneys general gain broad parens patriae enforcement authority, potentially leading to fragmented enforcement and conflicting state-level interpretations of 'social media platform' and 'personalized recommendation system.'

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill creates real protections for children—barring under-13 access and limiting algorithmic manipulation of teens—which addresses documented harms from social media. However, the school-blocking mandate (Title II) is blunt, may interfere with legitimate educational uses, and shifts enforcement burden to schools without clear funding for compliance infrastructure. The definition of 'social media platform' is broad and may capture educational tools.

Who stands to gain

• School technology vendors (filtering/blocking software providers)
• Compliance consulting firms
• Age-verification technology providers (if platforms voluntarily adopt them)

Named in the bill

Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), State attorneys general, Social media platforms (Meta, TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, X, etc.), Elementary and secondary schools, School districts, E-rate program (section 254, Communications Act), Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA)

Where it stands

14 cosponsors: 7 Democrats, 6 Republicans, 1 Independents.

• Jan 28, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
• Jan 28, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation”
• Feb 5, 2025 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably”

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

Money around this bill

15 lobbying clients named this bill on 21 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $16,331,909 in lobbying spend. A filing names 25 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 95% of bills with at least one filing.

Brian Schatz, the sponsor, reported $431,697 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
• Microsoft Corporation — $2,690,000 on 1 filing
• Software & Information Industry Association — $1,396,909 on 1 filing
• News Media Alliance — $475,000 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.