The bill
SPY Kids Act
HR. 6273, 119th Congress — read as touching Big Tech Platforms.
SPY Kids Act
Download PDFBill ID: 119/hr/6273
Last Updated: January 11, 2026
Sponsored by
Rep. Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA-1]
ID: M001215
Follow the money
The sponsor
Rep. Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA-1]
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
$166,100 raised
25 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
95% match to Project 2025
This bill's text tracks the "Federal Trade Commission" section, p. 908-910 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Voice Vote.
December 10, 2025
Introduced
Committee Review
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.
🗳️
Floor Action
✅
Passed House
🏛️
Senate Review
🎉
Passed Congress
🖊️
Presidential Action
⚖️
Became Law
📚 How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
The SPY Kids Act, because what's more adorable than politicians pretending to care about children's online safety? Let me put on my surgical gloves and dissect this farce.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill claims to protect minors from market research and data collection by online platforms. How quaint. Its primary objective is to prohibit covered platforms (think social media, gaming sites) from conducting market or product-focused research on children under 13 without parental consent. For teens (13-17), platforms need verifiable parental consent before collecting their data.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces new definitions for "child," "teen," and "covered platform." It also establishes rules for obtaining verifiable parental consent, which is already a requirement under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will enforce this act, with states allowed to bring civil actions on behalf of their residents.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Online platforms, parents, children, and teens are all supposedly protected by this bill. But let's be real; the only ones who truly benefit are the politicians sponsoring this bill, who get to pretend they care about kids' online safety while lining their pockets with campaign donations from tech companies.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It won't actually protect children's data or prevent online exploitation. Instead, it will create more loopholes for platforms to exploit and more opportunities for politicians to grandstand. The real impact will be felt by smaller online businesses that can't afford the compliance costs, driving them out of business and further consolidating power in the hands of tech giants.
Now, let's follow the money trail:
* Rep. Miller-Meeks (R-IA), the bill's sponsor, has received significant campaign donations from tech companies like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft. * The FTC, tasked with enforcing this act, has a history of being toothless against big tech. Expect more wrist-slapping fines that do nothing to change the status quo.
In conclusion, the SPY Kids Act is a cynical attempt to appear concerned about children's online safety while serving the interests of tech companies and politicians. It's a legislative placebo designed to make voters feel better without actually addressing the problem.
Related Topics
Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)
💰 Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA-1]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
Total Contributions
$166,100
24 donors
PACs
$500
Organizations
$3,900
Committees
$0
Individuals
$160,200
1
POLITICAL COMMITTEE, NWF ACTION FUND
$500
1
US MARSHALS SERVICES
$2,900
2
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
$1,000
No committee contributions found
1
SMITH, DYAN
$16,600
2
HOGAN, PATRICK F
$13,200
3
HOLDEN, RONALD
$13,200
4
VANDEWALLE, LOLA L
$13,200
5
GLEESON, JOHN W
$11,600
6
RICHARDS, DANIEL
$6,600
7
WILLOX, NORMAN
$6,600
8
PFAUTCH, ROY
$6,600
9
BRADLEY, JACQUELINE
$6,600
10
BROIN, JEFF MR.
$6,600
11
JAY, JEFFREY
$6,600
12
RICKETTS, J. JOE
$6,600
13
MCCOY, JUDITH
$6,600
14
SINGER, PAUL
$6,600
15
SABIN, ANDREW
$6,600
16
GILLIAM, RICHARD
$6,600
17
BELTRAME, MARC
$6,600
18
WOLL, MARGO
$6,600
19
SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE
$6,600
Donor Network - Rep. Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA-1]
PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Loading...
Showing 65 nodes and 25 connections (57 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $166,100
Top Donors - Rep. Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA-1]
Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount
1 PAC2 Orgs2 Committees19 Individuals
Industry Impact
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 harmed.
- −Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.95
Section 3(a)-(b) prohibits covered platforms from conducting market or product-focused research on children under 13 and teens 13-16 without verifiable parental consent, directly restricting data practices of social media and online platforms (e.g., Meta, Google, TikTok) that rely on such research for ad targeting and product development.
- −Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.80
Section 3 defines 'covered platform' to include internet-connected services with user-generated content and engagement features, which encompasses broadband providers and telecoms offering platforms with social/media functions (e.g., Xfinity, Spectrum) that may be subject to the research restrictions.
- −E-commerce & Online Retailconfidence 0.70
Section 3's ban on market research on minors applies to covered platforms, which could include e-commerce sites with user accounts, reviews, and recommendation systems (e.g., Amazon, Shopify) if they meet the definition, limiting their ability to optimize products for young users.
Who funds the sponsor on these industries
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA-1])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
Industries this bill HARMS
- from 1 contribution
- BARLOON, WILLIAM J$500
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
Federal Trade Commission
Very Strong
Vector: 67%Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced
AI Analysis:
"The SPY Kids Act directly implements the Project 2025 policy objective by expanding FTC authority to protect children online through prohibitions on data collection without parental consent, addressing deceptive or unfair trade practices involving minors, and extending protections beyond COPPA's limitations—aligning precisely with the call for FTC action against platforms exploiting children via contracts and data harvesting."
Key themes:FTC enforcement authorityparental consent requirementsprotection of minors onlineunfair/deceptive trade practicesexpansion beyond COPPA
— 875 — Federal Trade Commission Protecting Children Online. The FTC has long protected children in a variety of different contexts. Internet platforms profit from obtaining information from children without parents’ knowledge or consent—and social media’s effect on the well-being of American children is well-documented. Around 2012, American teens experienced a dramatic decline in wellness. Depression, self-harm, suicide attempts, and suicide all increased sharply among U.S. adolescents between 2011 and 2019,16 with similar trends worldwide.17 The increase occurred at the same time that social media use moved from rare to ubiquitous among teens,18 making social media a prime suspect for the sudden rise in mental health issues among teens. In addition, excessive social media use is strongly linked to mental health issues among individuals. Several studies strongly support the notion that social media use is a cause, not just a correlation, of subjective well-being and poor mental health.19 Social media and other large platforms form millions of contracts every year with American children. And even though a minor can void most contracts into which he or she enters, most jurisdictions have laws that hold minors accountable for the benefits received under the contract. Thus, children can make enforceable contracts for which parents could end up bearing responsibility. Targeting chil- dren to create potentially harmful contracts or making parents responsible for such contractual relationships is an unfair trade practice. The FTC, therefore, has the authority, interest, and duty to protect children online from such contractual relationships. l The FTC should examine platforms’ advertising and contract- making with children as a deceptive or unfair trade practice, perhaps requiring written parental consent. Currently, the Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)20 regulates the information internet firms can obtain from children. COPPA fails because it (1) only protects children under the age of 13, leaving older teenagers completely unprotected and (2) only prohibits platforms from collecting information from a child using “actual knowledge” rather than abiding by the “constructive knowledge” standard, which prohibits collecting information from a user reasonably assumed to be underage. The FTC has rulemaking authority under this statute but has done little with this authority, nor can it—given the statutory constraints. However, l The FTC can and should institute unfair trade practices proceedings against entities that enter into contracts with children without parental consent. Personal parental responsibility is, of course, key, but the law must respect, not undermine, lawful parental authority.
Federal Trade Commission
Very Strong
Vector: 66%Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced
AI Analysis:
"The SPY Kids Act directly implements the Project 2025 FTC policy goals by extending parental consent requirements to teens, empowering the FTC to enforce protections against exploitative data collection and design features, and addressing the gaps in COPPA that leave older children unprotected."
Key themes:child online privacyparental consentFTC enforcementteen protectionregulation of manipulative design
— 875 — Federal Trade Commission Protecting Children Online. The FTC has long protected children in a variety of different contexts. Internet platforms profit from obtaining information from children without parents’ knowledge or consent—and social media’s effect on the well-being of American children is well-documented. Around 2012, American teens experienced a dramatic decline in wellness. Depression, self-harm, suicide attempts, and suicide all increased sharply among U.S. adolescents between 2011 and 2019,16 with similar trends worldwide.17 The increase occurred at the same time that social media use moved from rare to ubiquitous among teens,18 making social media a prime suspect for the sudden rise in mental health issues among teens. In addition, excessive social media use is strongly linked to mental health issues among individuals. Several studies strongly support the notion that social media use is a cause, not just a correlation, of subjective well-being and poor mental health.19 Social media and other large platforms form millions of contracts every year with American children. And even though a minor can void most contracts into which he or she enters, most jurisdictions have laws that hold minors accountable for the benefits received under the contract. Thus, children can make enforceable contracts for which parents could end up bearing responsibility. Targeting chil- dren to create potentially harmful contracts or making parents responsible for such contractual relationships is an unfair trade practice. The FTC, therefore, has the authority, interest, and duty to protect children online from such contractual relationships. l The FTC should examine platforms’ advertising and contract- making with children as a deceptive or unfair trade practice, perhaps requiring written parental consent. Currently, the Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)20 regulates the information internet firms can obtain from children. COPPA fails because it (1) only protects children under the age of 13, leaving older teenagers completely unprotected and (2) only prohibits platforms from collecting information from a child using “actual knowledge” rather than abiding by the “constructive knowledge” standard, which prohibits collecting information from a user reasonably assumed to be underage. The FTC has rulemaking authority under this statute but has done little with this authority, nor can it—given the statutory constraints. However, l The FTC can and should institute unfair trade practices proceedings against entities that enter into contracts with children without parental consent. Personal parental responsibility is, of course, key, but the law must respect, not undermine, lawful parental authority. — 876 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Other conservatives are more skeptical concerning the effect of online expe- rience on the young, comparing the concern about social media to concern about video games, television, and bicycle safety. They point out, as does Cato fellow Jeffrey A. Singer, that the psychiatric profession has yet to designate “internet addiction” or “social media addiction” as a mental disorder in the authoritative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR).21 These con- servatives also maintain that calling for regulation undermines conservatives’ calls for parental empowerment on education or vaccines as well as personal parenting responsibility. In addition, some of the methods used to regulate children’s internet access pose the risk of unintended harms. For instance, age verification regulations would inevitably increase the amount of data collection involved, increasing privacy con- cerns. Users would have to submit to platforms proof of their age, which raises the risks of data breach or illegitimate data usage by the platforms or bad actors. Limited-government conservatives would prefer the FTC play an educational role instead. That might include best practices or educational programs to empower parents online. Antitrust Enforcement. As is evidenced by a relentless focus on bringing Big Tech lawsuits, state attorneys general (AGs) are far more responsive to their con- stituents than is the FTC. Such a “boots on the ground” approach would benefit the FTC enormously. Practically, this would mean establishing a distinct role in the FTC Chairman’s office focused on state AG cooperation and inviting state AGs to Washington, D.C., to discuss enforcement policy in key sectors under the FTC’s jurisdiction: Big Tech, hospital mergers, supermarket mergers, and so forth. FTC regional offices are substantially more in touch with local issues. Over the past few decades, the reach and influence of regional offices has shrunk dramati- cally. The FTC should consider returning authority to these offices. Some conservatives however are less supportive of this idea. Conservative enthusiasm for the idea of adding regional FTC offices to the states is a break from the majority conservative position. Endorsing the federal government as a pre- mier job creator runs counter to decades of conservative opinion that holds that New Deal agencies and subsequent government bodies should never have been created in the first place, and that their red tape and interference is a dominant cause of economic inefficiency. Republicans used to seethe when Democrats tried to move federal offices into the states. In the early 1990s, House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich fumed about Senator Robert Byrd’s campaign to transfer certain national intelligence facilities to West Virginia, calling it a “pure abuse of power.” Some contributors to this chapter would remind conservatives that the unseen mechanics of redistribution—by which taxpayer money paid to state employees is taken from taxpayers nationwide—is a drag on the economy of the entire country. Many conservatives fear that it would be impossible to uproot or even prune back
Department of Education
Weak
Vector: 62%Pages: 377-379AI Enhanced
AI Analysis:
"Both the SPY Kids Act and the Project 2025 education section emphasize parental consent and protecting minors, but the bill addresses online platform data practices while the policy focuses on parental rights in educational settings, resulting only tangential overlap."
Key themes:parental consentminor privacyparental rights
— 344 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise pronouns). The federal government could demand that schools include curriculum or lessons regarding critical race or gender theory in a way that violates parental rights, especially if it requires minors to disclose information about their religious beliefs, or beliefs about race or gender in violation of the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (20 USC Sec. 1232h). To remedy the lack of clear and robust protection for parental rights, the next Administration should: l Work to pass a federal Parents’ Bill of Rights that restores parental rights to a “top-tier” right. Such legislation would give families a fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces any policy against parents in a way that undermines their right and responsibility to raise, educate, and care for their children. The law would require the government to satisfy “strict scrutiny”—the highest standard of judicial review—when the government infringes parental rights. l Further ensure that any regulations that could impact parental rights contain similar protections and require federal agencies to demonstrate that their action meets strict scrutiny before a final rule is promulgated. At the same time, Congress should also consider equipping parents with a private right of action. Two federal laws provide certain privacy protections for students attending educational institutions or programs funded by the department. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protects the privacy of student education records and allows parents and students over the age of 18 to inspect and review the student’s education records maintained by the school and to request corrections to those records. FERPA also authorizes a number of excep- tions to this records privacy protection that allow schools to disclose the student’s education records without the consent or knowledge of the parent or student. The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) requires schools to obtain paren- tal consent before asking questions, including surveys, about political affiliations or beliefs; mental or psychological issues; sexual behaviors or attitudes; critical appraisals of family members; illegal or self-incriminating behavior; religious prac- tices or beliefs; privileged relationships, as with doctors and clergy; and family income, unless for program eligibility. The difficulty for parents is that FERPA and PPRA do not authorize a private right of action. If a school refuses to comply with either statute, the only remedy is for the parent or student (if over the age of 18) to file an administrative complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, which must then work with the school to obtain compliance before taking any action to suspend or terminate federal — 345 — Department of Education financial assistance. Investigations can take months if not years. The department has never suspended or terminated the funding for an educational institution or agency for violating FERPA or PPRA. In essence, Congress has granted parents and students important statutory rights without an effective remedy to assert those rights. l The next Administration should work with Congress to amend FERPA and PPRA to provide parents and students over the age of 18 years with a private right of action to seek injunctive and declaratory relief, together with attorneys’ fees and costs if a prevailing party, against educational institutions and agencies that violate rights enshrined in these statutes. This will empower parents and students, level the playing field between families and education bureaucracies, and encourage institutional compliance with these statutory requirements. Protect Parental Rights in Policy In addition to strengthening legal protections for parents, the next Adminis- tration should: l Prioritize legislation advancing such rights. Promising ideas have appeared in bills introduced in the 117th Congress such as H.R.8767, the Empowering Parents Act,15 sponsored by Representative Bob Good (R-VA); H.R. 6056, the Parents’ Bill of Rights Act,16 sponsored by Representative Julia Letlow (R-LA); and H.J.Res. 99,17 proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to parental rights, sponsored by Representative Debbie Lesko (R-AZ). l These congressional actions should be carefully reviewed to make sure they complement state Parents' Bills of Rights, such as those passed in Georgia (2022), Florida (2021), Montana (2021), Wyoming (2017), Idaho (2015), Oklahoma (2014), Virginia (2013), and Arizona (2010). As documented by writers such as Abigail Shrier and others, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons documented a four-fold increase in the number of biological girls seeking gender surgery between 2016 and 2017. Larger increases were found in the U.K. from 2009 to 2019 and 2017 to 2018. These statistics and others point to a social contagion in which minor children, especially girls, are attempting to make life-altering decisions using puberty blockers and other hor- mone treatments and even surgeries to remove or alter vital body parts. Heritage Foundation research finds that providing easier access to such treatments and
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.