Meta wants a child safety bill rewritten to shield it from lawsuits over harm to kids

[Skye Jacobs]

Rumor mill: According to a source familiar with the matter and proposed legislative language reviewed by Reuters, Meta has lobbied Congress to include a provision in the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) that would limit companies' exposure to child safety and privacy lawsuits. The proposal would grant platforms immunity from state-level child-harm claims involving users under 18, a change that could undercut thousands of lawsuits already filed.

The proposal comes as lawmakers and courts increasingly scrutinize how social media platforms are designed and used by minors. Features such as infinite scrolling, activity notifications, and appearance-altering photo filters – key tools for driving user engagement – have become central to legal and regulatory battles over youth safety. Critics argue these features can encourage compulsive use, particularly among younger users.

KOSA directly targets those design choices. The bill would require companies to take reasonable steps to reduce risks associated with minors' use of their platforms, including design elements that encourage prolonged engagement. In other words, the legislation focuses not only on the content users see, but also on the systems designed to keep them online.

At the same time, Meta's liability proposal could reshape how families and schools pursue lawsuits over those features. The proposed language would make companies "immune from suit or liability under state law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the safety or privacy of individuals under the age of eighteen online or otherwise related to the provisions" of KOSA. It would also override certain state laws governing children's online protections.

Meta has framed the proposal as a way to establish consistent national standards rather than avoid accountability. Company spokesperson Stephanie Otway said the provision "does not extinguish existing lawsuits, nor does it represent blanket immunity."

Instead, she said, it is intended to create "uniform national standards for online youth safety, ensuring these critical issues are governed by comprehensive federal legislation, not plaintiffs' lawyers or patchwork state legislation."

That interpretation is disputed by legal advocates. Julia Duncan of the American Association for Justice told Reuters that the language, as written, could have sweeping consequences for ongoing litigation. "The language is pretty clear-cut immunity against every parent, every school district, that is seeking to hold any AI or social media company accountable for harm" to children, Duncan said. "There is no other way to read this language."

The legal stakes are not theoretical. Meta and Google's YouTube are already facing thousands of lawsuits over alleged harms to minors. Earlier this year, the companies lost the first case to go to trial, resulting in a combined $6 million in damages. Both have said they plan to appeal.

Behind the scenes, the liability proposal appears tied to broader negotiations over KOSA's future. The bill, sponsored by Senators Marsha Blackburn and Richard Blumenthal, passed the Senate in 2024 with strong bipartisan support but stalled in the House. It has since been reintroduced and is now part of discussions involving the White House, as well as other measures related to artificial intelligence and federal preemption of state laws.

A spokesperson for Blackburn said the office had not seen the specific liability language and would not support it.

According to the source, Meta has offered to drop its opposition to KOSA if the provision is included – a signal of how high the stakes have become for companies whose core products rely on engagement-driven design. For engineers and product teams, the result could reshape how they design recommendation algorithms, notifications, and interface features for users under 18.

For now, the issue remains unsettled. Lawmakers are trying to impose guardrails on the very technologies that define modern social platforms, while companies are seeking clearer – and potentially narrower – rules on how those systems can be challenged. It is not yet clear how Congress will reconcile these competing aims.

Permalink to story:

Meta wants a child safety bill rewritten to shield it from lawsuits over harm to kids

 

[NumberNine]

Won't someone think of the children?!
We're all in this together right?

 

[Kirby1]

Social media is the reason alcohol sales are way down. Yes Marajuana being legal is a factor, but more than that young people are afraid to drink together because they don't want to be recorded while drunk, but they can't be in a social group without fear of being filmed so they just don't drink.

Not necessarily saying it's bad that young people drink less, but it's definitely not for a good reason.

 

[Win7user]

Just about everyone knows, Social Media, or Unsocial Media as I call it, do NOT care about children or their emotional or mental state. And, that can be said for so-called adults too. If, people really cared about the mental health of children, and the mental health of adults, they would simply ban ALL Social Media in the United States, forever! It's about money, and money is obviously more important than the mental health of children!

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Social media is an active detriment to society, but it also serves a purpose of keeping people accountable and democratizing access to information that previously would have been kept in private parties or in the hands of police departments.

The real question isnt if these companies should be held responsible for making apps that actively try to ruin peoples lives, they do and should, but why we are not holding parents responsible for not raising their children. When we were raised we were taught by our parents that while social media was neat it was important to not make it your whole life, and to keep yourself anonymous and not brag about your whole life.

 

[Endymio]

The real question isnt if these companies should be held responsible for making apps that actively try to ruin peoples lives, they do and should...

This level of sophomoric hyperbole isn't helpful. These firms are making products people find enjoyable and interesting. If you become so obsessed with an app that other aspects of your life suffer, that's a problem with your impulse control, not the app.

Children have low impulse control, so we control their access. But adults must learn to sink or swim. We'll have no fascist nanny state here, thank you.

...but why we are not holding parents responsible for not raising their children.

That's a very good point. We license people to drive, and to own a weapon ... but not to have and raise children? Honestly, that makes little sense.

 

[Puiu]

This level of sophomoric hyperbole isn't helpful. These firms are making products people find enjoyable and interesting. If you become so obsessed with an app that other aspects of your life suffer, that's a problem with your impulse control, not the app.

Children have low impulse control, so we control their access. But adults must learn to sink or swim. We'll have no fascist nanny state here, thank you.


That's a very good point. We license people to drive, and to own a weapon ... but not to have and raise children? Honestly, that makes little sense.

Let's stop defending these companies who are intentionally making harmful applications just so that they can sell more ads and services and who were intentionally targeting children. These companies have been caught doing it with transcripts and leaks many times over. And you still believe them? Pfff hahahaha. No wonder you also defend pedo trump.

Meta is literally in a large 29 states case in the US for illegally harvesting data from children under 13 without parental consent. And they recently lost a case in New Mexico $375m for misleading users over child safety.

"Meta executives knew their products harmed children, disregarded warnings from their own employees, and lied to the public about what they knew," Attorney General Raul Torrez said.

 

[OortCloud]

Mad that these really evil corporations are allowed to 'lobby' aka bribe politicians and lawmakers. It's so obvious Meta should be crucified for the damage they have done over the last decade. The company is a cesspit.

 

[Endymio]

Let's stop defending these companies who [were] intentionally targeting children.

I hear Baskin-Robbins is intentionally targeting children from ice cream sales. And what about Mattel? Their GI Joe and Barbie lines are not only targeting children, but also promoting patriarchal, oppgender stereotypes!

Meta is literally in a large 29 states case in the US for illegally harvesting data from children under 13 without parental consent.

Of course, that didn't happen. What you mean to say is that they harvested data from children who either lied about their age and claimed to be adults, or used a fake parental account to approve permission for them.

No wonder you also defend pedo trump.

No wonder you defend your fascist Romanian government, which transformed your country into the child trafficking capitol of Europe.

 

[Puiu]

I hear Baskin-Robbins is intentionally targeting children from ice cream sales. And what about Mattel? Their GI Joe and Barbie lines are not only targeting children, but also promoting patriarchal, oppgender stereotypes!


Of course, that didn't happen. What you mean to say is that they harvested data from children who either lied about their age and claimed to be adults, or used a fake parental account to approve permission for them.


No wonder you defend your fascist Romanian government, which transformed your country into the child trafficking capitol of Europe.

So you counter-argument is that others are targeting children with toys... ok dude, you've officially gone insane. You again are ignoring everything and saying things out of your ars about the court cases. You literally had employees from Meta saying that they intentionally did it and that they knew and here you are... talking BS.

Go defend hitler and pedo trump, that's all you are good for here.

 

[Endymio]

So you counter-argument is that others are targeting children with toys...

You'd have more success here if you'd learn to read. Baskin-Robbins doesn't make toys. Sesame Street doesn't make toys. Teen clothing stores don't make toys. Every company that makes products and services for children "targets" them. You're merely using loaded language to push propaganda.

You literally had employees from Meta saying that they intentionally did it and that they knew and here you are... talking BS.

Again: learn to read. No Meta employee stated they "intentionally illegally harvested data from children". What they said was that, in the absence of a uniform federal law and reliable age-detection mechanisms, it's impossible to not accidentally collect data from children, when they pretend to be adults.

Go defend hitler and pedo trump, that's all you are good for here.

Again you introduce pedophilia into every argument. But then you choose to live in the child exploitation capitol of the Northern hemisphere.

 

[Puiu]

You'd have more success here if you'd learn to read. Baskin-Robbins doesn't make toys. Sesame Street doesn't make toys. Teen clothing stores don't make toys. Every company that makes products and services for children "targets" them. You're merely using loaded language to push propaganda.


Again: learn to read. No Meta employee stated they "intentionally illegally harvested data from children". What they said was that, in the absence of a uniform federal law and reliable age-detection mechanisms, it's impossible to not accidentally collect data from children, when they pretend to be adults.


Again you introduce pedophilia into every argument. But then you choose to live in the child exploitation capitol of the Northern hemisphere.

The one spreading fascist propaganda here every day is accusing others. Pffff hahahahaha.

You live defending pedophiles and rapists. That's all you do here.

You do realize that you can just google, right? And I mentioned multiple court cases not just one. Do you want names?

For the new Mexico trial Arturo Béjar's testimony was part of it. He also previously talked in front of the US congress:

Ex-Meta employee says his warnings of Instagram’s harm to teens were ignored

Arturo Béjar told Congress that he saw first-hand how the social media giant was not protecting his child from harassment

www.theguardian.com

"No Meta employee stated" - it seems like you were lying again. that's a direct statement of illegal activity a former meta employee. and the data of those accounts, which they know are of children, IS AND WILL BE USED for their data banks for ads and AI training

As for your childish statement: "What they said was that, in the absence of a uniform federal law and reliable age-detection mechanisms, it's impossible to not accidentally collect data from children, when they pretend to be adults." - that's absolutely false. It's not about "accidents", it's about what they do with the data after they find that it's from children and the intentional inaction. it's why the current lawsuit in the US is a join lawsuit of 29 states (with several other states taking independent action against meta).