highbeamSubscribe

Policy brief 05 · Kids + Social Media

Duty of Care for Minors

Build products for children with reasonable care, or answer for it.

All policy briefs

A crib sold in America must meet federal safety standards. When Congress ordered those standards updated, regulators ended the sale of drop-side cribs, which had been linked to at least 32 infant deaths since 2000.1 No federal law sets a standard of care for how social media is designed for the children who use it. Congress should require large platforms to test their designs, fix what they find, owe minors reasonable care, and answer for serious injuries.

The Problem

As of September 1, 2026, 3,208 lawsuits alleging that social media platforms harmed young people were pending before a single federal judge.2 In March 2026, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and Google's YouTube negligent in the design of their apps and awarded a young plaintiff $6 million;3 the trial judge upheld the verdict, and both companies say they will appeal.4 In August 2026, Meta agreed to pay up to $17 billion in a settlement with 51 attorneys general and to change how Instagram and Facebook work for users under 18.5

A parent can set household rules. Only the company decides how its product is built: whether videos autoplay, when notifications arrive, and who may contact a child by default. The states alleged that Meta designed its business models "to maximize young users' time and attention."6

Responsibility for those choices now depends on which court, which feature, and which company. Three gaps stand out:

  1. Kids are the target. Jurors in Los Angeles saw a Meta document stating, "If we wanna win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens."3
  2. Safety stays optional. At their August 2026 trial, the states accused Instagram's head of touting its "Take a Break" nudge when it had "very limited uptake by teens."7
  3. The law turns on the feature. In 2023 the judge overseeing the federal cases held that Section 230 bars claims that platforms recommended minors' accounts to adult strangers, but does not bar claims that their parental controls were ineffective.8

Why legislation: The Senate passed the Kids Online Safety Act 91 to 3 in 2024,9 and its current version rests on a duty of care.10 The House-passed KIDS Act instead requires safety policies while stating that it does not "impose a duty of care."11 States from Vermont to Louisiana have written such duties into law.12 No federal law does, so the standard is being set one verdict and one settlement at a time, and Meta's settlement binds Meta alone.5 Companies that build products for millions of children should owe them the care we expect of anyone who makes things for kids.

The Solution

A four-step staircase: each step stands alone, and each step up adds accountability. Scope: platforms above 10 million monthly U.S. users, users under 18, and five harms: mental-health crises, compulsive use, abuse and harassment, sexual exploitation, and access to unsafe products such as drugs, alcohol, or gambling.

Step 1 — Test designs before launch. Before launching or materially changing features that shape a minor's experience (notifications, autoplay, contact from strangers, recommendations), platforms assess foreseeable risks, document the safer alternatives they considered, and keep the records. Connecticut already grants a rebuttable presumption of reasonable care to companies that complete required assessments.13

Step 2 — Fix what you find. When an assessment or credible evidence shows a serious risk, adopt a feasible safer design: protective defaults, working limits, better reporting tools. Meta's settlement shows what this can look like: a default two-hour daily limit and an overnight block for minors, both of which only a parent can lift.5

Step 3 — Owe minors reasonable care. Platforms must exercise reasonable care in design to prevent the five harms where they are reasonably foreseeable, following KOSA's §102.10 The FTC and state attorneys general enforce the duty with civil penalties. As in KOSA, nothing would stop a minor from searching for content or seeking help.

Step 4 — Answer for serious injuries. Give families a federal claim for serious injury caused by a breach, with proof of causation required, and state plainly that Section 230 does not bar claims under this duty. H.R. 6266 pairs a similar duty for recommendation algorithms with a private right of action.14

Where to start: Step 1 is the floor; it asks companies to look before they ship. Step 3 is the heart of the proposal.

Administration and enforcement: The FTC writes standards within 18 months; compliance follows a year later. Meeting the standards counts as evidence of care; it does not excuse ignoring a known danger.

Risks and Mitigations

  • Censorship by another name: Critics, including Senator Rand Paul, have warned that KOSA threatens free speech.9 Tie the duty to design features, bar enforcement based on viewpoint, and provide, as Vermont does, that the content a minor views cannot establish a harm.12 First Amendment scrutiny still applies wherever a duty reaches recommendations.
  • Causation: Proving that a design caused an injury is hard, and Meta argues teen mental health "cannot be linked to a single app."3 Require proof of causation for damages; the FTC duty turns on reasonable precautions taken before harm occurs. Some verdicts will still go wrong.
  • Incumbent advantage: Compliance costs weigh most on smaller firms. The 10 million threshold and risk-scaled documentation limit that, but no duty can promise zero risk.

Similar Bills

Fit measures similarity to this proposal's mechanisms: High = direct precedent; Partial = useful component with material differences; Related = adjacent approach.

Federal — 119th Congress

Proposal or bill Relevant provisions and fit Fit
S. 1748 — Kids Online Safety Act
Blackburn (R-TN), Blumenthal (D-CT), Thune (R-SD), Schumer (D-NY)
Ordered reported with a substitute · Aug. 5, 2026		 Introduced §102 requires reasonable care in design features to prevent seven listed harms to minors; the FTC enforces it under §109, and §112 leaves Section 230 unchanged. Closest precedent for Step 3; covers users under 17. Compares introduced text; the substitute was not reviewed. High
H.R. 6266 — Algorithm Accountability Act
Kennedy (R-UT), McClain Delaney (D-MD)
Referred to committee · Nov. 21, 2025		 §2 adds a duty of reasonable care in recommendation-algorithm design to prevent bodily injury or death, removes Section 230(c)(1) protection for violations, and creates a private right of action; chronological sorting is exempt. Precedent for Step 4; all ages, limited to algorithms and physical injury. Partial
H.R. 7757 — KIDS Act
Guthrie (R-KY)
Passed House · June 29, 2026		 §213 requires reasonable policies against four harms, but §213(c)(2) says it does not impose a duty of care; §219 requires annual independent audits. An alternative to a duty, useful for Steps 1 and 2. Related

State

Proposal or bill Relevant provisions and fit Fit
California — AB 2246 (2026)
Chapter 187 · Approved Sept. 10, 2026		 Civil Code §1798.99.30 requires services likely to be accessed by children to take reasonable steps against foreseeable physical or financial harm and severe psychological harm; the attorney general and public prosecutors enforce, with penalties up to $15,000 per affected child for intentional violations, and no private right of action. Close precedent for Step 3; broader service coverage and no duty to monitor or remove third-party content. High
Connecticut — SB 1295 / PA 25-113
Approved June 24, 2025 · §15 effective July 1, 2026		 §15 requires services with known minor users to use reasonable care to avoid any heightened risk of harm, with a rebuttable presumption of care for companies that complete required assessments. Precedent for Steps 1 and 3 within a data-privacy law. High
Vermont — S. 69 / Act 63
Signed June 12, 2025 · Effective Jan. 1, 2027		 9 V.S.A. §2449c sets a minimum duty of care against foreseeable emotional distress, compulsive use, and discrimination; the content a minor views cannot establish those harms. Strong precedent for Step 3; different harm list. High
Louisiana — HB 427 / Act 552 (2026)
Signed May 29, 2026 · Effective Jan. 1, 2027		 R.S. 9:2717.4(C) says platforms that contract with minors "owe a duty of care," defined through default privacy settings and parental tools. A named duty with narrow content; related to Steps 2 and 3. Partial

What this adds: KOSA offers the closest federal model, and states have begun enacting their own duties. This proposal covers all users under 18 on large platforms, ties five defined harms to documented design decisions, and pairs FTC and state enforcement with a limited private remedy that Section 230 cannot block.

Notes

  1. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, "Safer Cribs for Babies Available Starting Today," June 28, 2011. Drop-side cribs "were associated with at least 32 infant suffocation and strangulation deaths since 2000"; the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 "required the CPSC to update the old crib standards." ↩

  2. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, MDL Statistics Report: Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by Actions Pending, September 1, 2026: MDL No. 3047, In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation (N.D. Cal.), 3,208 actions pending. The cases include individual, school district, and state claims; all are allegations. ↩

  3. NPR, "Jury finds Meta and Google negligent in social media harms trial," March 25, 2026. Damages were $3 million compensatory and $3 million punitive. Meta said teen mental health is "profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app." ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  4. MediaPost, "Judge Rejects Meta And Google Bid To Overturn 'Addiction' Verdict," June 2026 (Los Angeles Superior Court denied post-trial motions); Associated Press, "Meta to appeal verdict in key social media case," July 12, 2026. ↩

  5. California Attorney General, "Attorney General Bonta Secures Transformative $17 Billion Settlement with Meta," August 26, 2026. Payments of up to $17 billion over ten years; several terms tighten "if other social media platforms agree to similar terms." NPR reported court approval the same day; Meta denied the allegations. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  6. New York Attorney General, "Attorney General James and Multistate Coalition Sue Meta for Harming Youth," October 24, 2023. Allegations in a complaint filed by 33 attorneys general in federal court; nine more filed in state courts. ↩

  7. NPR, "Meta, states agree to $17 billion settlement in child safety trial," August 26, 2026, describing the states' questioning of Instagram head Adam Mosseri at trial. ↩

  8. In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, No. 4:22-md-03047-YGR, Dkt. 430 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2023), at 14–15, sorting alleged design defects into those barred and not barred by Section 230. ↩

  9. Connecticut Public, "Blumenthal's Kids Online Safety Act passes Senate," July 30, 2024 (91–3 vote with COPPA 2.0; Sen. Paul's free-speech objections). See also Senate Roll Call Vote 221, 118th Cong., 2d Sess. ↩ ↩2

  10. S. 1748, Kids Online Safety Act, 119th Cong. § 102 (introduced text); § 102(b)(1) protects a minor's deliberate searches and access to help resources. ↩ ↩2

  11. H.R. 7757, KIDS Act, 119th Cong. § 213(c)(2) (House-passed text, as referred to the Senate July 13, 2026). ↩

  12. Vermont Act 63 (2025), 9 V.S.A. § 2449c ("minimum duty of care"; content viewed "shall not establish" the listed harms), effective January 1, 2027; Louisiana Act 552 (2026), R.S. 9:2717.4(C), effective January 1, 2027. ↩ ↩2

  13. Connecticut Public Act 25-113, § 15 (amending Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-529a), effective July 1, 2026. ↩

  14. H.R. 6266, Algorithm Accountability Act, 119th Cong. § 2 (introduced text). ↩