Kids Privacy Talks Fragmented in House as Biden Targets Issue

House members are pushing competing kids' privacy bills in an attempt to keep pace with bipartisan efforts in the Senate (see 2202280060). But talks in the lower chamber have been fragmented, House Commerce Committee members told us Tuesday at a House Consumer Protection Subcommittee hearing.

President Joe Biden was set to unveil a sweeping agenda to address a social media-linked children's mental health “crisis” during his State of the Union address, the White House said Tuesday. The administration cited “mounting evidence” of harm social media is causing to the mental health of kids and teens. Biden was to urge Congress to ban targeted ads for children and “excessive data collection.”

The White House wants “safety by design standards and practices.” Platforms should be required to “prioritize and ensure the health, safety and well-being of children and young people above profit and revenue in the design of their products and services,” the White House said. Discriminatory algorithmic decision-making should be banned, the White House said. The administration will direct the Department of Health and Human Services to launch a national “Center of Excellence on Social Media and Mental Wellness,” which will study and disseminate information on the topic.

Democrats have reached out, but despite what Republicans say “at the dais,” there’s “no engagement” on children’s privacy, Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Fla., told us. She’s leading efforts for Democrats on the topic and has introduced two Democratic proposals. The Senate bill is a “good effort,” she said. “It’s not as strong, but again, it’s refreshing. And maybe if they can move something over there, it will light a fire over here.”

Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., rejected Castor’s claim that kids’ privacy efforts have been one-sided in the House. She noted the Preventing Real Online Threats Endangering Children Today (Protect) Kids Act (HR-1781), a bipartisan bill from Reps. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., and Bobby Rush, D-Ill. Walberg told us they have tried twice to get consideration at a committee hearing, but it appears Castor “has her own ideas.” Walberg said he and Rush are willing to sit down and “see if there’s any type of means by which we can come up with a solution and a compromise.”

HR-1781 would update the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), raising the age of parent consent protection from 13 to 16. It would add geolocation and biometric information as categories of personal information covered by COPPA. It would allow parents to delete information about their kids and direct an FTC study on COPPA’s knowledge standard.

Castor introduced a bill that would also update COPPA. The Protecting the Information of our Vulnerable Children and Youth Act (Kids Privacy Act) would require opt-in consent for users under the age of 18 and would ban targeted ads for children and teenagers. Users would be able to access, correct and delete personal information. It would also make teenagers ages 13-17 a protected class, allowing them to control how data is collected and shared. The bill didn’t get consideration Tuesday, but another Democratic proposal (HR-6416), which would ban the use of personal data for targeted advertisements, was included on the agenda. Three Democratic and two Republican proposals largely concerning tech platform transparency were included.

House Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, D-N.J., during the hearing referenced a bipartisan discussion draft on comprehensive privacy legislation issued last Congress (see 2112090077 and 1909060046). “It’s a bit of a mystery to me what they’re referencing,” ranking member Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., told us. There’s been “fits and starts” on privacy, and each time it’s brought up, Republicans are told it’s “in the works.” Rodgers said she’s “anxious” to build on bipartisan work done last Congress with House Consumer Protection Subcommittee Chair Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.

Democrats are looking forward to “very soon considering” a comprehensive privacy bill, said Schakowsky during opening remarks. Pallone said he’s committed to working with Republicans to pass legislation. Ranking member Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., said he hopes the next hearing will focus on comprehensive privacy legislation. He urged support for his Cooperation Among Police, Tech and Users to Resist Exploitation Act (HR-6755), which was considered Tuesday. It would direct the GAO to research “how to improve coordination between social media companies and police without constitutional issues.” Both Rodgers and Bilirakis criticized TikTok for again declining to testify before the panel. The platform is a key player in the threat to the mental health of young users, said Rodgers. The company didn’t comment.

Schakowsky urged refining the proposals considered at Tuesday’s hearing because they will help make the internet safer. The Digital Services Oversight and Safety Act (HR-6796) from Rep. Lori Trahan, D-Mass., improves transparency for consumers and ensures that research can measure the impact of social media on society, she said.

Rodgers highlighted misinformation efforts on social media surrounding the Russian invasion of Ukraine. She asked if Duck Duck Go is continuing its business relationship with Russian search engine Yandex. Duck Duck Go paused its relationship with Yandex due to Russia’s “assault on democracy and Ukraine,” said Senior Public Policy Manager-U.S. Katie McInnis. Yandex was used to provide non-news-related links for search engine results in Russian and Turkey, she said. McInnis backed banning “surveillance” ads, which would help protect children against excessive data collection. She criticized other platforms for claiming ignorance when not detecting underage user accounts.

Trahan’s HR-6796 would create an FTC bureau to issue rules on public-facing transparency reports, certified research and disclosures to the commission to shed light on how data is collected. Transparency requirements like those included in the bill would help provide context and create accountability for platforms, which have become “allergic” to transparency, said Consumer Reports Policy Analyst Laurel Lehman.