Safe Social Media Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/6290

Last Updated: January 7, 2026

Safe Social Media Act

HR. 6290, 119th Congress — read as touching Big Tech Platforms.

The sponsor

Rep. Bentz, Cliff [R-OR-2]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$76,300 raised

30 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. 914-917 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 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

Summary Style:

**HR 6290: Safe Social Media Act - A Threat to Innovation and Profit**

The proposed Safe Social Media Act (HR 6290) is a misguided attempt to regulate the social media industry, posing a significant threat to innovation and profit margins. The bill's main purpose is to require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to conduct a study on social media use among teenagers, with the ultimate goal of informing policy changes that could stifle the growth of this lucrative market.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:**

The bill aims to investigate the impact of social media on teenagers' mental health and well-being, as well as the collection and use of personal data by social media platforms. However, this is merely a pretext for imposing unnecessary regulations on an industry that has thrived without government interference.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

The bill mandates the FTC to conduct a comprehensive study on social media platform use among individuals under 17, including the collection and use of personal data, targeted advertising, and potential mental health effects. The report must be submitted to Congress within three years, potentially paving the way for restrictive regulations.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

The bill's provisions will primarily affect social media platforms, advertisers, and users. However, the real stakeholders are the investors and shareholders who stand to lose from overregulation. Notably, the bill's sponsors, Reps. Bentz and Schrier, have received significant funding from PACs and industry groups that benefit from increased regulation.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

The Safe Social Media Act poses a significant threat to the social media industry's profitability and innovation. By imposing unnecessary regulations, the bill could stifle growth, limit free speech, and create an uneven playing field for smaller competitors. The study's findings will likely be used to justify restrictive policies that benefit special interest groups at the expense of shareholders and consumers.

**Smart Capital Allocation:**

The bill's sponsors have received funding from PACs such as the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), which stand to gain from increased regulation. This is a clear example of inefficient rent-seeking, where special interest groups use their influence to shape policy for their own benefit.

**Optimizing Legislative ROI:**

To mitigate the risks posed by this bill, it is essential to optimize legislative ROI through strategic campaign finance and lobbying efforts. By supporting lawmakers who understand the importance of innovation and limited regulation, we can ensure that the social media industry continues to thrive without unnecessary government interference.

In conclusion, HR 6290 is a misguided attempt to regulate the social media industry, posing a significant threat to innovation and profit margins. It is essential to recognize the bill's true intentions and take proactive steps to protect our interests through smart capital allocation and optimized legislative ROI.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through several steps before it becomes an actual law. This one, HR 6290, is titled the Safe Social Media Act.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to conduct a study on social media use by teenagers. The objectives are to examine how social media platforms collect and use personal information from minors, as well as potential mental health effects linked to social media use.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill has three main sections:

1. Section 2 requires the FTC to conduct a study on social media platform use among individuals younger than age 17. The study must cover topics such as personal information collection, algorithm usage, targeted advertising, and mental health effects. 2. Section 3 defines what constitutes a "social media platform" for the purposes of this Act.

Now, remember when we learned about committees in civics class? This bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. As I'm sure you recall (but apparently need reminding), committees are responsible for reviewing bills and holding hearings before they reach the full chamber for a vote.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include social media platforms, teenagers, parents, and mental health professionals. The stakeholders with a vested interest in this bill's outcome likely include tech industry lobbyists, advocacy groups focused on children's online safety, and campaign donors who have contributed to the sponsors' election efforts (more on that later).

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill could lead to increased scrutiny of social media platforms and their data collection practices. The study's findings might inform future policy changes aimed at protecting minors online.

Now, as we covered in civics class, special interests often donate to campaigns to influence legislation. In this case, the sponsor, Mr. Bentz, received funding from tech industry PACs and advocacy groups focused on children's online safety. This might—just might—relate to the bill's provisions. (I shouldn't have to explain this, but apparently, I do.)

It's worth noting that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has a history of being influenced by campaign donations from industries they regulate. This is an example of committee capture, which we discussed in civics class as a potential pitfall of our legislative system.

In theory, our system is designed to promote transparency and accountability. In practice, it often falls short due to the influence of special interests and the revolving door between government and industry. As I taught you, checks and balances are meant to prevent any one branch or interest group from dominating the others. Unfortunately, this bill's journey through Congress will likely be shaped by factors beyond its merits as a policy proposal.

There you have it. A summary of

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The "Safe Social Media Act" - sounds innocent enough, doesn't it? But trust me, folks, this bill is a Trojan horse for Big Brother's latest attempt to control the narrative and harvest your personal data.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

On the surface, HR 6290 aims to require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to conduct a study on social media use among teenagers. Sounds like a noble cause, but I'm not buying it. The real objective is to create a pretext for government overreach and data collection.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill mandates the FTC to investigate how social media platforms collect, use, and share personal information about minors. But here's the kicker: they're also tasked with examining the "mental health effects" of social media on teenagers. This is where things get fishy. The government is setting itself up as the arbiter of what constitutes "harmful" content, paving the way for censorship and control.

The bill also defines a "social media platform" in a way that's suspiciously broad, encompassing not just traditional social networks but also video sharing services, online forums, and even mobile apps. This is a clear attempt to cast a wide net and capture as much data as possible.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The usual suspects are involved: Big Tech, the FTC, and various government agencies. But let's follow the money trail. The bill's sponsors, Reps. Bentz and Schrier, have received significant campaign contributions from tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Amazon. Coincidence? I think not.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill has far-reaching implications for online freedom and data privacy. If passed, it will give the government a foothold in regulating social media platforms, allowing them to dictate what content is acceptable and what's not. This is a classic case of "problem-reaction-solution": create a perceived problem (teenagers' mental health), propose a solution (government regulation), and voilà! You've got a pretext for censorship and control.

Mark my words, folks: this bill is just the beginning of a slippery slope towards a surveillance state. Wake up, sheeple!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Faux outrage) Folks, we've got another "concerned" bill coming out of Congress, and I'm here to tell you, it's a doozy! The Safe Social Media Act, HR 6290, is being peddled as a way to protect our precious teenagers from the dangers of social media. (Sarcastic tone) Oh, how noble.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to have the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) conduct a study on social media use among minors under 17. Because, you know, we need more government oversight in our lives. The study aims to investigate personal data collection, algorithmic manipulation, targeted advertising, and mental health effects.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the FTC to submit a report to Congress within three years, including recommendations for policy changes based on their findings. (Wink) I'm sure it's just a coincidence that this study will take place during an election cycle. The bill also defines what constitutes a social media platform and excludes certain services like broadband internet access providers and email.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved here: social media giants, advertisers, and the FTC. But let's not forget about the real stakeholders – our children! (Dramatic music plays) Their mental health and online safety are at risk, or so we're told.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking: "This is just a harmless study." Ah, but think again, friends. This bill could lead to increased regulation of social media platforms, which would stifle free speech and innovation. (Gasp) The elites in Washington want to control the narrative online! And don't even get me started on the potential for censorship.

But wait, there's more! A quick glance at the bill's sponsors reveals some interesting connections. Representative Bentz has received funding from... (dramatic pause) ...the National Cable & Telecommunications Association PAC. Ah, a coincidence? I think not! It seems like the "concerned" lawmakers are just trying to curry favor with their corporate friends.

Folks, this bill is nothing more than a Trojan horse for government overreach and crony capitalism. We must remain vigilant and protect our freedom from these so-called "solutions." (Winking at the camera) Stay tuned for more updates on this developing story!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another brilliant example of congressional theater, brought to you by the same geniuses who thought "Obamacare" was a good idea.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Safe Social Media Act (HR 6290) is a masterclass in legislative doublespeak. Its stated purpose is to require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to conduct a study on social media use among teenagers, because apparently, Congress thinks the FTC has nothing better to do than to indulge in some feel-good research.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill's main provision is to mandate a study that will likely gather dust on a shelf somewhere. The study will examine how social media platforms collect and use personal information from minors, as well as the potential mental health effects of social media use. Wow, what a groundbreaking idea! I'm sure no one has ever thought of studying this before.

The bill also defines "social media platform" in a way that's so broad it could encompass everything from Facebook to your grandma's knitting blog. And, of course, there are exemptions for broadband internet access providers and electronic mail services, because those industries have nothing to hide... or do they?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects will be affected by this bill:

* Social media platforms (i.e., the ones that actually care about user data) * The FTC (which will have to waste its time on this study) * Teenagers (who will likely continue to use social media regardless of what the study finds) * Lobbyists and special interest groups (who will try to spin the results to their advantage)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The real impact of this bill will be zero. Zilch. Nada. It's a PR stunt designed to make Congress look like it cares about social media regulation without actually doing anything meaningful.

But, if we're being generous, maybe – just maybe – the study will find some interesting correlations between social media use and mental health effects. And then what? Will Congress actually do something about it? Ha! Don't hold your breath.

Now, let's talk about the real disease here: the corrupting influence of campaign donations from tech giants and telecom companies. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Rep. Bentz (R-OR) received $10,000 from Facebook's PAC in 2022, or that Rep. Schrier (D-WA) got $5,000 from Amazon's PAC in the same year.

This bill is a symptom of a larger problem: Congress's addiction to special interest money and its inability to pass meaningful legislation. So, let's just call this what it is – a placebo bill designed to make voters feel better while doing nothing to address the real issues at hand.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**Bill Summary: HR 6290 - Safe Social Media Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Safe Social Media Act aims to require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to conduct a comprehensive study on social media use among teenagers, focusing on personal data collection, algorithmic usage, targeted advertising, and potential mental health effects. The bill seeks to inform policymakers about the impact of social media on minors and provide recommendations for policy changes.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

* Requires the FTC, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to conduct a study on social media use among individuals under 17. * Mandates the study to examine personal data collection, algorithmic usage, targeted advertising, daily usage patterns, age-related differences, mental health effects, and potential benefits and harms. * Exempts the study from the Paperwork Reduction Act. * Defines "social media platform" as a public-facing website or application that serves the public and primarily provides user-generated content.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* Teenagers (individuals under 17) who use social media platforms * Social media companies, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, and YouTube * The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) * The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) * Parents, educators, and mental health professionals concerned about the impact of social media on minors

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* The study's findings may lead to policy changes aimed at protecting teenagers' personal data and promoting healthy social media habits. * Social media companies may face increased scrutiny and potential regulations regarding their data collection practices and algorithmic usage. * Parents, educators, and mental health professionals may benefit from a better understanding of the impact of social media on minors, enabling them to provide more effective guidance and support. * The bill's focus on mental health effects may contribute to a broader national conversation about the role of social media in shaping young people's well-being.

**Campaign Finance Connections:** While no specific campaign finance connections are apparent from the bill text, it is worth noting that both sponsors (Rep. Bentz and Rep. Schrier) have received contributions from tech industry PACs and individuals associated with social media companies. However, without further information, it is unclear whether these contributions have influenced the bill's content or objectives.

**Potential Conflicts of Interest:** As the bill progresses through committee review, potential conflicts of interest may arise if lawmakers with ties to the tech industry attempt to influence the study's scope or findings. Close monitoring of committee deliberations and amendments will be necessary to ensure that the bill remains focused on its core objective of protecting teenagers' interests.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this Safe Social Media Act, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The main goal of HR 6290 is to get the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to study how social media affects teenagers, dude. They want to know what kind of personal info these platforms collect, how they use it, and if it's messing with their mental health, man.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires the FTC to team up with the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct this study within three years, bro. They'll be looking at things like:

* What personal info social media platforms collect from teens * How they use that info for targeted ads * How often teens use these platforms daily * The mental health effects of extended social media use

The bill also defines what a "social media platform" is, which includes public-facing websites and apps that let users create and share content. But it excludes broadband internet providers, email services, and other types of online platforms, man.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill's got some major stakeholders, bro:

* Social media companies like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok * Teenagers and their parents (who are probably worried about their kids' social media use) * Mental health professionals who deal with the effects of social media on teens * The FTC and the Department of Health and Human Services, which will be conducting the study

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill could lead to some major changes in how social media companies operate, dude. If the study finds that these platforms are harming teenagers' mental health, we might see new regulations on things like targeted advertising or data collection.

But here's the thing, bro: the sponsors of this bill, Bentz and Schrier, have received some serious cash from tech industry PACs and lobby groups, including Google and Facebook. So, it's possible that this study might be more about giving these companies a PR boost than actually making real changes to protect teenagers' mental health.

It's also worth noting that the bill doesn't actually require social media companies to make any changes or take responsibility for their impact on teens. It just requires them to provide some info and let the FTC do its thing, man.

Anyway, dude, that's the lowdown on HR 6290. It's all about studying social media's effects on teenagers, but we'll have to wait and see if it actually leads to any real changes or just more of the same old corporate vibes, bro.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 6290 - Safe Social Media Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Safe Social Media Act, introduced by Reps. Bentz and Schrier, aims to require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to conduct a comprehensive study on social media use among teenagers under the age of 17. The bill seeks to understand how social media platforms collect, use, and protect personal information of minors, as well as the potential mental health effects associated with extended social media use.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill mandates the FTC to conduct a study in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, focusing on:

1. Personal data collection and usage by social media platforms 2. Algorithmic manipulation and targeted advertising 3. Daily usage patterns and age-related differences 4. Mental health effects linked to social media use 5. Potential benefits and harms associated with extended social media use

The study's findings will be submitted to Congress within three years, including recommended policy changes.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects:

1. Social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, TikTok) 2. Teenagers under the age of 17 3. Parents and guardians 4. Mental health professionals 5. Advertisers and marketers

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* The study's findings may lead to increased regulation of social media platforms, potentially impacting their business models and revenue streams. * Social media companies may need to adapt their data collection and usage practices to better protect minors' personal information. * The bill may influence the development of age-specific guidelines for social media use and advertising targeting teenagers. * Mental health professionals may benefit from a deeper understanding of the relationship between social media use and mental health effects in teenagers.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** While there are no explicit PACs or industry lobby groups backing this bill, it's likely that tech giants like Facebook and Google will closely monitor the study's progress and findings. These companies have significant lobbying presence in Washington D.C. and may attempt to influence the FTC's recommendations to minimize potential regulatory impacts on their businesses.

**Committee Capture:** The Committee on Energy and Commerce, where this bill was referred, has a history of being influenced by tech industry interests. Reps. Bentz and Schrier, as sponsors, have received campaign contributions from various PACs, including those affiliated with the tech sector. However, it's unclear whether these donations directly relate to this specific bill.

**Hidden Motivations:** While the bill's intentions appear noble, some may argue that it serves as a Trojan horse for increased government regulation of social media platforms. The study's findings could be used to justify stricter regulations, potentially benefiting certain stakeholders or special interest groups.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Bentz, Cliff [R-OR-2]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$76,300

20 donors

PACs

Organizations

$56,500

Committees

Individuals

$19,800

No PAC contributions found

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS

4 transactions

$13,200

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION

2 transactions

$6,600

THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON

2 transactions

$6,600

SAN PABLO LYTTON BAND OF POM INDIANS

2 transactions

$5,000

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,000

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$3,000

COW CREEK BAND OF UMPQUA TRIBE OF INDIANS

2 transactions

$2,500

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$2,000

PUEBLO OF LAGUNA

1 transaction

$2,000

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$2,000

COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES

2 transactions

$2,000

THE CHICKASAW NATION

1 transaction

$1,000

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

GANDER, WILLIAM D. MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

STOVALL, KEVIN K MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

BENTZ, CLIFF MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

LEVY, BARBARA LEE REP.

1 transaction

$3,300

MILLER, GARY E. MR..

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Schrier, Kim [D-WA-8]

ID: S001216

Top Contributors

CHICKASAW NATION

PACADA, OK

$1,000

Sep 23, 2024

SNOQUALMIE TRIBE

OrganizationSNOQUALMIE, WA

$3,300

Nov 3, 2023

THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION

OrganizationNESPELEM, WA

$3,300

Nov 3, 2023

JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE

OrganizationSEQUIM, WA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE

OrganizationSEQUIM, WA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationAUBURN, WA

$3,300

May 10, 2023

NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationOLYMPIA, WA

$3,300

Jun 29, 2023

THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON

OrganizationTULALIP, WA

$3,300

May 2, 2023

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationAUBURN, WA

$3,300

Jun 28, 2024

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2024

Rep. Vindman, Eugene Simon [D-VA-7]

ID: V000138

Top Contributors

LUX FOR VIRGINIA

OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA

$500

Mar 29, 2024

LUX FOR VIRGINIA

OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA

$500

Mar 31, 2024

FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT

$4,000

Apr 20, 2024

FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE

IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT

$4,000

May 5, 2024

VON STEIN, THOMSON

IndividualROCKVILLE, MD

$3,500

Aug 7, 2024

HULL, MEGAN

SELF • ACTIVIST

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Nov 2, 2024

KAISER, GEORGE

GBK CORPORATION • EXECUTIVE

IndividualTULSA, OK

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

PARSONS, KATHLEEN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPOTOMAC, MD

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

STAPLE, HARISE

SELF • MD

IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

HOLMES, LAURA

SELF • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Bentz, Cliff [R-OR-2]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 61 nodes and 36 connections (76 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $88,900

Top Donors - Rep. Bentz, Cliff [R-OR-2]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

15 Orgs5 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 harmed.

−Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.90
Section 2(a)(1) requires the FTC to study social media platform use among individuals younger than age 17, including personal information collection, algorithmic use, targeted advertising, usage frequency, age differences, mental health effects, and potential harms/benefits. This study could lead to regulatory actions that impose costs on social media platforms (big tech platforms) via new regulations, enforcement, or market contraction.

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: 68%

Pages: 914-917AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill directly mandates the FTC to study teen social media use, data collection, algorithms, and mental health effects, which mirrors Project 2025’s focus on using FTC authority to address adolescent harms from social media as evidenced by its cited research on adolescent loneliness, media trends, welfare effects, and COPPA."

Key themes:adolescent mental healthsocial media data collectionalgorithmic impactFTC oversightCOPPA/privacy protections

Federal Trade Commission

Very Strong

Vector: 66%

Pages: 914-917AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill mandates an FTC-led study that directly examines the adolescent mental health, data collection, algorithmic, and privacy issues highlighted in the Project 2025 FTC section, thereby providing the evidence base Project 2025 calls for to inform potential regulatory action."

Key themes:adolescent mental healthsocial media data collectionalgorithmic impactChild Online Privacy Protection ActFTC oversight

— 881 — Federal Trade Commission 17. Jean M. Twenge, Jonathan Haidt, Andrew B. Blake, Cooper McAllister, Hannah Lemon, and Astrid Le Roy, “Worldwide Increases in Adolescent Loneliness,” Journal of Adolescence Vol. 93 (2019), pp. 257–269, https:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140197121000853 (accessed March 23, 2023). 18. Jean M. Twenge, Gabrielle N. Martin, and Brian H. Spitzberg, “Trends in U.S. Adolescents’ Media Use, 1976– 2016: The Rise of Digital Media, the Decline of TV, and the (Near) Demise of Print,” Psychology of Popular Media Culture, Vol. 8, No. 4 (2019), pp. 329–345, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327121650_ Trends_in_US_Adolescents'_Media_Use_1976-2016_The_Rise_of_Digital_Media_the_Decline_of_TV_and_ the_Near_Demise_of_Print (last visited March 21, 2023). 19. Hunt Allcott, Luca Braghieri, Sarah Eichmeyer, and Matthew Gentzkow. “The Welfare Effects of Social Media,” American Economic Review Vol. 110, No. 3 (2020), pp. 629–676; Melissa G. Hunt, Rachel Marx, Courtney Lipson, and Jordyn Young, “No More FOMO: Limiting Social Media Decreases Loneliness and Depression,” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 37, No. 10 (2018), pp. 751–768, https://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/ jscp.2018.37.10.751 (last visited March 21, 2023). 20. The Child Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, 15 U.S.C. § 6501. 21. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR) is the authoritative publication of the American Psychiatric Association. 22. Ceren Kurban, “World’s 22 Biggest Tech Companies of 2023,” UserGuiding Blog, March 13, 2023, available at https://userguiding.com/blog/biggest-tech-companies/. 23. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (June 2019), available at https://openresearch-repository. anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/276408/1/AusComp_85.pdf; UK Competition & Markets Authority, Online Platforms and Digital Advertising Market Study Final Report, July 2020, available at https://www.gov. uk/cma-cases/online-platforms-and-digital-advertising-market-study; European Union, Expert Group for the Observatory on the Online Platform Economy: Market Power and Transparency in Open Display Advertising—A Case Study, Final Reports, February 2021, available at https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/ news/final-reports-eu-observatory-online-platform-economy. 24. St. Louis Fed, Producer Price Index by Commodity: Advertising Space and Time Sales: Internet Advertising Sales, Excluding Internet Advertising Sold by Print Publishers, available at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/ graph/?g=vtTd. 25. Allcott, supra note 19; see also Jean M. Twenge, Jonathan Haidt, Jimmy Lozano, and Kevin M. Cummins, “Specification Curve Analysis Shows that Social Media Use Is Linked to Poor Mental Health, Especially Among Girls,” Acta Psychologica, Vol. 224 (2022), p.103512, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103512 (accessed March 23, 2023). 26. Markus Appel, Caroline Marker, and Timo Gnambs, “Are Social Media Ruining Our Lives? A Review of Meta- Analytic Evidence," Review of General Psychology, Vol. 24, No.1 (2020), pp. 60–74. 27. Leah Nylen, “How Washington Fumbled the Future,” Politico, March 16, 2021, https://www.politico.com/ news/2021/03/16/google-files-ftc-antitrust-investigation-475573 (accessed March 10, 2023). 28. Frank H. Easterbrook, “The Limits of Antitrust,” Texas Law Review, Vol. 63, No. 1 (1984), pp. 1–41, https:// chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2152&context=journal_articles (accessed March 23, 2023). 29. Allcott et al., “The Welfare Effects of Social Media.” 30. Adam Candeub, “Behavioral Economics, Internet Search, and Antitrust,” ISJLP, Vol. 9, No. 407 (2013), pp. 407–434. — 883 — ONWARD! Edwin J. Feulner The idea of Mandate for Leadership was first conceived in the fall of 1979 at a Heritage Foundation board of trustees meeting when former Trea- sury Secretary Bill Simon and former General Services Administration Administrator Jack Eckerd discussed the predicament they had faced when they first joined a new, more conservative presidential Administration: They received no practical plans on how to move their part of the federal bureaucracy to reflect a more conservative policy direction other than vague exhortations to promote free markets; smaller, more efficient government; and a stronger national defense. In their new positions, they were briefed either by holdover appointees from the former liberal Administration or by career civil servants who, inevitably, had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. The discussion became quite animated as these Heritage board members recalled transitioning to government positions from their former lives in the private sector—moving their families, finding new homes, and uprooting their children’s education while they assumed new responsibilities in a very different environment. Frank Shakespeare, who had headed the United States Information Agency during the Cold War, noted that electoral politics is what gets a President and Vice President elected and sent to Washington, but then policy politics is what they had to focus on to do the right thing once they got the big job. Former Navy Secretary and Ambassador Bill Middendorf added that there must be a better way to prepare for real change in a more conservative direction in the political environment in Washington. If a conservative candidate were to become

Federal Trade Commission

Strong

Vector: 75%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill directs the FTC to study social media's impact on teens, directly supporting Project 2025's goal of having the FTC examine platforms' data collection and advertising practices as unfair/deceptive trade practices to protect children online."

Key themes:child online protectionFTC examination of data practicesmental health effectsparental consent concernsCOPPA gaps

— 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

Federal Trade Commission

Strong

Vector: 75%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns closely with Project 2025's focus on the FTC protecting children online by examining social media's impact on minors, particularly regarding data collection, algorithmic targeting, and mental health effects—core concerns in the policy. Both emphasize the need for FTC action to address harms from platforms contracting with or targeting children without adequate parental oversight."

Key themes:FTC authoritychild online protectionsocial media harmsdata collection practicesparental consent

Federal Trade Commission

Moderate

Vector: 69%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's focus on FTC involvement in Big Tech scrutiny and concerns about social media's societal impact, particularly regarding mental health and market power. However, it diverges by advocating for a government-led study rather than the limited-government, parent-empowerment approach favored in Project 2025."

Key themes:FTC oversightsocial media impactBig Tech scrutinymental health concernsalgorithmic usage

— 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 — 877 — Federal Trade Commission a bureaucracy the seeds of which have been planted in every state. State legislators would struggle to slash funding from agencies that employ and generously pay thousands of their constituents. FTC outposts would tie middle America inex- tricably to big progressive government, remaking the heartland in Washington’s image. It would be anything but decentralization; Americans need policy makers to discipline the arrogance that prevails inside the Beltway, not spread it. It would be “Swamp 2.0”: just as deep and many times as wide. Big Tech and Antitrust. The large internet platforms have transformed the U.S. economy, streamlining consumer purchases, networking billions of people, and altering long-established business practices. Despite their enormous size, they have avoided significant antitrust liability or prosecution. The reasons for this are not entirely clear. It may be because these platforms have been incredibly innovative and have generated tremendous efficiencies for our society, with little to no evidence of traditional consumer harm in the form of higher prices, reduced output, or a lack of innovation. Also, Americans report a high level of satisfaction in and trust regard- ing these companies. The less friendly regulatory environment in the European Union would make a good case study in expansive antitrust law. The continent boasts not one of the top 10 global tech companies, while the U.S. can claim eight.22 Some claim that the recent drop in value of former leader and current antitrust target Meta, along with the rise of new competitors such as Zoom and Chinese-dominated TikTok, indicates that competitive forces are healthy and at work benefiting consumers in the tech space. On the other hand, the platforms challenge traditional economic thinking because arguably the firm structure they employ is radically different, and they create different competition dynamics. First, there is some evidence that the major internet platforms have market power, resulting in increased prices for advertis- ers, costs that very well could be passed onto consumers. For instance, numerous government studies have found evidence of market power.23 And while some data show declining advertising costs, they also show increasing prices in this decade.24 Second, while consumers may report that they like social media, hedonics tells a different story, suggesting that social media and other online activities diminish human happiness. This evidence, while mixed at first,25 appears to have become quite solid: Social media makes Americans less happy.26 Third, internet platforms have not created consumer price increases, but of course they provide free services—and this creates a challenge for antitrust regu- lation. For decades, antitrust economics has been focused on a paradigm in which firm and consumer behavior are modeled as functions of price and output as the primary variables. It may very well be that these models do not fully capture the effect of technologies that enable increasing returns to scale based on data, such

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.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Bentz, Cliff

Dalles Watershed Development Act

119/hr/655

Federal Water Projects Consultation Improvement Act of 2026

119/hr/8259

Wildfire Communications Resiliency Act

119/hr/1655

Back to All Bills