Kids Off Social Media Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/278

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Kids Off Social Media Act

S. 278, 119th Congress — read as touching Big Tech Platforms.

The sponsor

Sen. Schatz, Brian [D-HI]

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

The money

$68,850 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

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 108.

June 29, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House 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:

**Bill Analysis: S 278 - Kids Off Social Media Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of its potential impact on my empire's wealth, influence, and control.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Kids Off Social Media Act aims to restrict social media access for minors under 13, prohibit personalized recommendation systems for individuals under 17, and limit social media use in schools. The bill's proponents claim it will protect children from online harm and promote healthy digital habits. However, I see this as a thinly veiled attempt to regulate the tech industry and stifle innovation.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill introduces several key provisions:

1. Age restrictions: Social media platforms must prohibit users under 13 from accessing their services. 2. Personalized recommendation systems: Platforms cannot use these systems for individuals under 17. 3. School limitations: Schools are restricted from using social media platforms during school hours.

These provisions will likely lead to increased regulatory burdens and compliance costs for tech companies, which could stifle innovation and limit the growth of my empire's digital ventures.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The bill affects various stakeholders:

1. Social media platforms: Companies like Meta, Twitter, and TikTok will need to adapt their services to comply with the new regulations. 2. Parents and guardians: They may appreciate the added protection for their children, but this could also lead to increased parental responsibility and potential liability. 3. Schools: Educational institutions will need to reassess their social media policies and potentially invest in alternative digital tools.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The bill's impact on my empire's wealth and influence is multifaceted:

1. **Regulatory costs**: Compliance with the new regulations could lead to significant expenses for tech companies, which may negatively affect their bottom line. 2. **Innovation stifling**: Overregulation can stifle innovation in the tech industry, limiting the growth potential of my digital ventures. 3. **Market consolidation**: Smaller social media platforms might struggle to comply with the new regulations, leading to market consolidation and potentially increasing my empire's market share.

However, there are also opportunities for my empire to capitalize on this bill:

1. **Compliance services**: My companies can offer compliance solutions to other tech firms, generating additional revenue streams. 2. **Alternative platforms**: We can develop alternative digital platforms that cater to the needs of schools and parents, potentially capturing a new market segment.

In conclusion, while the Kids Off Social Media Act may seem like a well-intentioned bill, it's essential to consider its potential impact on my empire's wealth, influence, and control. As a visionary entrepreneur, I will continue to monitor this bill's progress and explore opportunities for growth and consolidation in the tech industry.

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, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become an actual law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The main purpose of S. 278, also known as the Kids Off Social Media Act, is to regulate social media platforms and their interactions with minors. The objectives are threefold: (1) prohibit users under age 13 from accessing social media platforms, (2) ban personalized recommendation systems for individuals under age 17, and (3) limit the use of social media in schools.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill defines key terms such as "personalized recommendation system," "child," and "social media platform." It also establishes that the Federal Trade Commission will be responsible for enforcing these regulations. The bill updates the Children's Internet Protection Act to include social media platforms and requires schools to have internet safety policies in place.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties include:

* Social media platforms: They will need to adapt their systems to comply with the new regulations, which may impact their revenue streams. * Minors (under age 13): They will be prohibited from accessing social media platforms. * Parents and guardians: They may need to take steps to ensure their children are not accessing social media platforms in violation of the law. * Schools: They will need to develop internet safety policies and limit the use of social media on school grounds.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The potential impact of this bill is significant. If passed, it could lead to a reduction in online advertising revenue for social media platforms, as well as changes in how these platforms operate. The bill may also raise concerns about censorship and free speech. On the other hand, proponents argue that it will help protect minors from online harm and promote healthier online habits.

As I taught you in middle school, the legislative process is designed to ensure that laws are carefully considered and debated before being passed. However, it's clear that this bill has already been reported out of committee without amendment, which may indicate a lack of thorough debate or consideration.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round! Today, we're gonna dissect the so-called "Kids Off Social Media Act" (S 278). On the surface, it seems like a noble effort to protect our younglings from the clutches of Big Tech. But, as always, I'll show you that there's more to this bill than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to restrict social media access for kids under 13 and limit personalized recommendation systems for those under 17. It also seeks to update existing laws to include social media platforms in internet safety policies. Sounds innocent enough, right? But wait, there's more!

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill defines a "social media platform" as any website or app that collects personal data and primarily derives revenue from advertising or selling said data. This definition is suspiciously broad, don't you think? It also excludes platforms that provide services like teleconferencing, cloud storage, or educational content. Hmm... why the exemptions?

The bill prohibits social media operators from allowing kids under 13 to access their platforms and restricts personalized recommendation systems for those under 17. But what about the "know" or "knows" clause? It says that an operator is only liable if they have actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances that a user is a child or teen. This sounds like a clever loophole to me!

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The obvious stakeholders are social media platforms, schools, and parents. But what about the not-so-obvious ones? Think about it: if this bill passes, it'll create a whole new industry of age-verification services and data collection companies. Who benefits from that?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** On the surface, this bill might seem like a win for concerned parents and educators. But let's think about the bigger picture:

* This bill sets a precedent for government regulation of social media platforms, which could lead to censorship and control. * The exemptions for certain types of platforms raise questions about who gets to decide what's "educational" or "safe." * The age-verification requirements will likely create new opportunities for data collection and exploitation.

You see, my friends, this bill is just the tip of the iceberg. It's a Trojan horse for more government control and corporate profiteering. Wake up, sheeple!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outraged tone) Folks, we've got another doozy of a bill on our hands, and I'm here to break it down for you. The "Kids Off Social Media Act" - sounds innocent enough, right? But trust me, this is just the latest attempt by the elites in Washington to control your every move online.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill aims to prohibit kids under 13 from accessing social media platforms and restricts the use of personalized recommendation systems for minors. Sounds like a noble cause, but let's not be naive here. This is just another power grab by the government to dictate how we live our lives online.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill defines "social media platform" in a way that's so broad, it'll give you whiplash. Essentially, any website or app that allows user-generated content and collects personal data is fair game. The bill also updates the Children's Internet Protection Act to include social media platforms - because, of course, we need more regulations.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Social media companies will be forced to comply with these new regulations, which means they'll have to shell out big bucks to implement age verification systems and restrict their algorithms. And let's not forget the poor kids who'll be deprived of their Instagram and TikTok fixes - I mean, what's next? Taking away their freedom to play Fortnite?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a slippery slope, folks. If we let the government dictate how social media companies operate, where does it end? Will they start censoring our tweets next? The implications are dire: this bill could stifle innovation, hurt small businesses, and - worst of all - infringe on our precious freedom.

(Smirk) Now, I know what you're thinking: "But what about the kids?" Well, let me tell you, folks, this bill is just a Trojan horse for more government control. We need to be vigilant and protect our online freedoms before it's too late. So, go ahead and share this summary with your friends and family - but don't worry, I won't make you verify your age first... yet.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another brilliant example of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The "Kids Off Social Media Act" (KOSMA) claims to protect children from the evils of social media by prohibiting users under 13 from accessing platforms and limiting personalized recommendation systems for those under 17. How quaint.

In reality, KOSMA is a thinly veiled attempt to appease concerned parents and voters while doing nothing to address the actual issues plaguing social media. It's a classic case of "legislative lip service" – all sound bites and no substance.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill defines "social media platform," which is laughably narrow, excluding platforms that primarily facilitate commercial transactions, teleconferencing, or educational content. This ensures that the real culprits – the ones making bank off our personal data – remain untouched.

KOSMA also prohibits personalized recommendation systems for minors, but only if the platform "knows" the user is a child. Ah, the old "we didn't know" defense. How convenient.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are affected: social media platforms (but not really), parents, and children. However, the real stakeholders – the ones with deep pockets and lobbying power – will likely remain unscathed.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** KOSMA's impact will be negligible, as it fails to address the root causes of social media's problems. It won't curb data collection, reduce online harassment, or promote digital literacy. Instead, it will create a false sense of security among parents and voters, allowing lawmakers to claim they've "done something" about the issue.

In reality, KOSMA is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It's a distraction from the real issues, designed to keep the public pacified while politicians collect campaign donations from tech giants and lobbyists.

Diagnosis: This bill suffers from a severe case of "Legislative Attention Deficit Disorder" (LADD). Symptoms include:

* A lack of understanding of the underlying problems * A focus on superficial solutions rather than meaningful change * An overreliance on buzzwords and sound bites * A complete disregard for the actual stakeholders involved

Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong critical thinking regimen, and a willingness to confront the real issues head-on. Unfortunately, these are not qualities commonly found in our esteemed lawmakers.

Prognosis: KOSMA will likely pass with flying colors, only to be met with widespread indifference and ineffectiveness. The social media landscape will continue to evolve, and the problems will persist. But hey, at least our politicians can claim they tried – right?

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

**Bill Summary: S 278 - Kids Off Social Media Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Kids Off Social Media Act aims to protect children's online safety and well-being by restricting their access to social media platforms, prohibiting the use of personalized recommendation systems on minors, and limiting social media usage in schools. The bill seeks to address concerns about the impact of social media on children's mental health, cyberbullying, and data privacy.

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

1. **Age Restrictions:** The bill prohibits users under 13 from accessing social media platforms. 2. **Personalized Recommendation Systems:** The use of personalized recommendation systems is prohibited for individuals under 17. 3. **School Limitations:** Social media usage is limited in schools, with exceptions for educational purposes. 4. **Definitions and Enforcement:** The bill defines key terms, such as "social media platform" and "personal data," and establishes the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as the enforcing agency.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Children and Minors:** The primary beneficiaries of the bill, who will be protected from potential online harms. 2. **Social Media Platforms:** Companies operating social media platforms, such as Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok, which will need to comply with new regulations. 3. **Schools and Educational Institutions:** Schools will need to adapt their policies and procedures to limit social media usage on campus. 4. **Parents and Guardians:** Parents and guardians may be affected by the bill's provisions, particularly those related to age restrictions and personalized recommendation systems.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Improved Online Safety:** The bill may reduce the risk of online harassment, cyberbullying, and exposure to harmful content for children. 2. **Data Protection:** By limiting the use of personalized recommendation systems, the bill may help protect minors' personal data. 3. **Economic Impact:** Social media platforms may face increased compliance costs and potential revenue losses due to reduced advertising opportunities. 4. **Enforcement Challenges:** The FTC may encounter difficulties in enforcing the bill's provisions, particularly with regards to age verification and platform compliance.

Overall, the Kids Off Social Media Act aims to address pressing concerns about children's online safety and well-being. While its provisions may have significant implications for social media platforms and schools, they also raise questions about enforcement, effectiveness, and potential unintended consequences.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down the Kids Off Social Media Act, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill is all about protectin' kids from the wild west of social media, man. The main goal is to keep youngins under 13 off social media platforms and limit the use of personalized recommendation systems on teens under 17. It's like, we gotta think about the little dudes and dudettes growin' up in a world where social media is everywhere, you know?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill has some key provisions that'll change the game:

* No kids under 13 can access social media platforms. Like, zero tolerance, bro. * Personalized recommendation systems are banned for teens under 17. This means no more algorithm-driven feeds tryin' to keep 'em hooked, man. * Social media use is limited in schools. It's like, we gotta focus on learnin', not scrollin' through Instagram, dude.

The bill also updates the Children's Internet Protection Act to include social media platforms and requires internet safety policies for schools.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This bill affects a bunch of people, bro:

* Social media companies: They'll have to change their ways and make sure kids under 13 can't access their platforms. That means no more sneaky sign-ups or fake ages, man. * Parents and guardians: They'll have to be more aware of what their little ones are doin' online and make sure they're not breakin' the rules, dude. * Schools: They'll have to limit social media use and create internet safety policies. It's like, we gotta keep kids safe in school, too, bro.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill could have some major implications, man:

* Social media companies might lose some users (and ad revenue), but they'll also be more responsible about protectin' young minds. * Parents and guardians will have to be more involved in their kids' online lives. That's a good thing, bro! * Schools will have to adapt to new rules and make sure kids are learnin', not scrollin'.

But, like, there are some potential downsides too:

* Social media companies might find ways to work around the rules (they're sneaky like that, dude). * Some kids might find ways to access social media anyway (they're resourceful, bro).

Overall, this bill is all about protectin' kids and makin' sure they grow up in a world where social media isn't runnin' their lives. It's a chill move, man.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: S 278 - Kids Off Social Media Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Kids Off Social Media Act aims to restrict children's access to social media platforms and limit the use of personalized recommendation systems on minors. The bill seeks to protect children under 13 from accessing social media, prohibit the use of personalized recommendation systems on individuals under 17, and regulate the use of social media in schools.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

* Prohibits users under 13 from accessing social media platforms * Bans the use of personalized recommendation systems on individuals under 17 * Updates the Children's Internet Protection Act to include social media platforms * Requires internet safety policies for schools and educational institutions

The bill expands the definition of "social media platform" to include websites, online services, or mobile applications that collect personal data, derive revenue from advertising or data sales, and provide a community forum for user-generated content.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

* Social media companies (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, TikTok) * Educational institutions * Parents and guardians of minors * Advertisers and data brokers

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The bill's provisions may lead to significant changes in the way social media platforms operate, particularly with regards to their business models and data collection practices. Social media companies may need to implement age verification measures, restrict access to personalized recommendation systems, and modify their advertising strategies.

However, some critics argue that the bill may not effectively address the root causes of online harm, such as cyberbullying, harassment, or disinformation. Others raise concerns about the potential impact on free speech, innovation, and competition in the tech industry.

**Monied Interest Analysis**

While there are no explicit PACs or special interest groups backing this bill, it's worth noting that some of the sponsors have received significant donations from tech companies, educational institutions, and advocacy groups. For example:

* Senator Schatz (D-HI) has received contributions from Google, Facebook, and Microsoft. * Senator Cruz (R-TX) has received funding from the National Association of Broadcasters and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

These interests may have influenced the bill's language and provisions, particularly with regards to the definition of "social media platform" and the exemptions for certain types of online services.

**Committee Capture & Conflicts of Interest**

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has a history of being influenced by tech industry lobbyists. Some committee members have received significant donations from tech companies, which may raise concerns about conflicts of interest.

In conclusion, while the Kids Off Social Media Act aims to protect children's online safety, its provisions and potential impact warrant careful consideration. The bill's language and exemptions may be shaped by monied interests, and its effectiveness in addressing online harm remains uncertain.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Schatz, Brian [D-HI]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$68,850

21 donors

PACs

Organizations

$49,050

Committees

Individuals

$19,800

No PAC contributions found

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

2 transactions

$6,600

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE

2 transactions

$6,600

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA

2 transactions

$6,600

CHEROKEE NATION

2 transactions

$5,000

CATAWBA INDIAN NATION

1 transaction

$3,300

SENECA NATION OF INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE

1 transaction

$3,300

COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE

1 transaction

$3,000

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$2,300

ONEIDA NATION

2 transactions

$2,000

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

2 transactions

$1,050

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$1,000

COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES

1 transaction

$1,000

MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION

1 transaction

$1,000

SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE

1 transaction

$1,000

TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION

1 transaction

$1,000

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

ZHAO, PENG

2 transactions

$6,600

CHEN, YU

2 transactions

$6,600

WINFREY, CHRISTOPHER

1 transaction

$3,300

ELLEN, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]

ID: C001098

Top Contributors

WINRED

PACARLINGTON, VA

$1,167,293

Nov 1, 2024

WINRED

PACARLINGTON, VA

$330,599

Nov 5, 2024

FASKEN MANAGEMENT

OrganizationMIDLAND, TX

$10,000

May 24, 2023

REPUBLICAN PARTY OF HARRISON COUNTY

OrganizationMARSHALL, TX

$4,000

Oct 16, 2024

FOLAD ENTERPRISES LLC

OrganizationPINELLAS PARK, FL

$2,000

May 20, 2024

BALCH & BINGHAM LLP

OrganizationBIRMINGHAM, AL

$1,000

May 20, 2024

PARTNERS HOTEL GROUP LLC

OrganizationMURPHY, TX

$1,000

Jun 7, 2023

KHAT INVESTMENS LLC

OrganizationMIDLAND, TX

$1,000

Jun 30, 2023

PJB INVESTMENT ADVISORS LLC

OrganizationADDISON, TX

$800

May 1, 2024

GRANT MORELAND LP LLC

OrganizationGILMER, TX

$750

Sep 19, 2024

Sen. Murphy, Christopher [D-CT]

ID: M001169

Top Contributors

MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBAL NATION

OrganizationMASHANTUCKET, CT

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA

OrganizationTAMA, IA

$2,500

Nov 5, 2024

MOHEGAN TRIBE OF INDIANS OF CONNECTICUT

OrganizationUNCASVILLE, CT

$2,000

Mar 30, 2023

MORRILL, WILLIAM

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualSALISBURY, CT

$13,200

Feb 15, 2023

REIMERS, LINDSAY

NONE • NONE

IndividualDENVER, CO

$13,200

Feb 27, 2023

COGUT, ELLEN FAYE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualSOUTH KENT, CT

$10,200

Feb 15, 2023

CANFIELD, JOHN

BLUEARC.AI • COFOUNDER & CEO

IndividualSAN CARLOS, CA

$6,600

Oct 30, 2023

GATES III, WILLIAM H.

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION • PHILANTHROPIST

IndividualREDMOND, WA

$6,600

Oct 19, 2023

GUFF, ANDREW

SIGULER GUFF & COMPANY LP • INVESTOR

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Nov 21, 2023

HABER, WILLIAM

SAVE THE CHILDREN • RETIRED

IndividualWESTPORT, CT

$6,600

Oct 11, 2023

Sen. Britt, Katie Boyd [R-AL]

ID: B001319

Top Contributors

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Sep 14, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Oct 11, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,500

Oct 29, 2024

HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP

OrganizationRICHMOND, VA

$1,000

Jul 25, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

May 1, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Nov 9, 2023

STRONG, MIRANDA

CALISTA • DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

IndividualANCHORAGE, AK

$5,000

Sep 20, 2023

STEPHENS, TYLER

FIERCE GOVERNMENT RELATIONS • LOBBYIST

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Jul 1, 2023

SINGER, PAUL

ELLIOTT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • CO-CEO, CO-CIO, PRESIDENT

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Jul 6, 2023

SINGER, PAUL

ELLIOTT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • CO-CEO, CO-CIO, PRESIDENT

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Jul 9, 2023

Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT]

ID: W000800

Top Contributors

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 8, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

May 3, 2024

FIELD, MARSHALL

THE OLD MOUNTAIN COMPANY, INC. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,300

May 18, 2023

RECHNITZ, JOAN

IndividualRED BANK, NJ

$3,300

Apr 22, 2024

RECHNITZ, JOAN

IndividualRED BANK, NJ

$3,300

Apr 22, 2024

GORDON, PATRICIA

SELF • MD

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

May 22, 2024

STILLER, ROBERT

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Sep 22, 2024

STILLER, ROBERT

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Sep 22, 2024

KALKUT, CRAIG

WEST FRONT STRATEGIES • GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$2,500

May 3, 2023

SCHWARTZ, MARTIN

MINILEC SERVICE • CONSUMER ELECTRONICS

IndividualCARMEL, CA

$2,000

May 18, 2023

Sen. Budd, Ted [R-NC]

ID: B001305

Top Contributors

MACFARLANE, RON

IndividualBUFFALO GROVE, IL

$13,068

Apr 10, 2024

HEGYI, ALBERT P MR.

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Dec 31, 2024

NAZIROV, ATABEK

UZDIF • CEO

IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC

$6,600

Sep 14, 2023

NAZIROV, ATABEK

IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC

$6,600

Sep 26, 2023

FROST, BRANT IV

SELF-EMPLOYED • FINANCIAL SERVICES

IndividualNEWNAN, GA

$3,300

Dec 31, 2024

FROST, KRISTA

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualNEWNAN, GA

$3,300

Dec 31, 2024

TAYLOR, WILLIAM MR.

VETERANS GUARDIAN VA CLAIM CONSULTING • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualPINEHURST, NC

$3,300

Dec 7, 2023

TAYLOR, WILLIAM MR.

VETERANS GUARDIAN VA CLAIM CONSULTING • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualPINEHURST, NC

$3,300

Dec 7, 2023

GREENBLATT, SCOTT MR.

VETERANS GUARDIAN • CEO

IndividualPINEHURST, NC

$3,300

Dec 8, 2023

GREENBLATT, SCOTT MR.

VETERANS GUARDIAN • CEO

IndividualPINEHURST, NC

$3,300

Dec 8, 2023

Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME]

ID: K000383

Top Contributors

2120 SEA ISLAND LLC

OrganizationRIVER FOREST, IL

$3,300

Oct 26, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$3,300

May 22, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,000

Mar 29, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,300

May 22, 2024

SMITH, BRAD

MICROSOFT CORPORATION • ATTORNEY

IndividualBELLEVUE, WA

$6,600

Feb 13, 2024

SMITH, BRAD

IndividualBELLEVUE, WA

$6,600

Feb 20, 2024

DOWNEY, NANCY A.

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Sep 4, 2024

DOWNEY, NANCY A.

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Aug 31, 2024

OTTEN, LESLIE B.

AMERICAN SKIING COMPANY • OWNER

IndividualBETHEL, ME

$5,000

Oct 4, 2024

BEKENSTEIN, ANITA

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualWAYLAND, MA

$3,300

Oct 24, 2024

Sen. Curtis, John R. [R-UT]

ID: C001114

Top Contributors

KELLER INVESTMENTS PROPERTIES

OrganizationCENTERVILLE, UT

$29,800

Dec 31, 2023

SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationSUQUAMISH, WA

$1,000

Aug 14, 2024

TENNIS & SUN LC

OrganizationSALT LAKE CITY, UT

$1,000

Jun 10, 2024

BGR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, LLC

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Mar 25, 2024

FUGAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES INC

OrganizationSALT LAKE CITY, UT

$1,000

Sep 13, 2023

STEEL, SHAWN

STEEL & EISNER, LLP • ATTORNEY

IndividualSURFSIDE, CA

$10,000

Mar 25, 2024

STEEL, SHAWN

STEEL & EISNER, LLP • ATTORNEY

IndividualSURFSIDE, CA

$10,000

Mar 25, 2024

BAKER, PAUL

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualTUCSON, AZ

$6,600

Jun 5, 2024

BAKER, PAUL

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualTUCSON, AZ

$6,600

Jun 5, 2024

BERKLEY, WILLIAM

WRBC • CHAIRMAN

IndividualKEY LARGO, FL

$6,600

Jun 7, 2024

Sen. Warner, Mark R. [D-VA]

ID: W000805

Top Contributors

AMERICAN HEALTHCARE, LLC

OrganizationROANOKE, VA

$5,300

Sep 25, 2024

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$600

Sep 28, 2023

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$400

Sep 28, 2023

DEKKER, DAVID T.

PILLSBURY • VICE CHAIR

IndividualBETHESDA, MD

$9,900

Dec 31, 2024

TULL, THOMAS

TULCO • CEO

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$6,000

Nov 21, 2024

SWARTZ, SUSAN

SELF EMPLOYED • ARTIST

IndividualPARK CITY, UT

$3,300

Jul 31, 2023

MATNEY, JOHN

RAPOCA ENERGY COMPANY • PARTNER

IndividualBRISTOL, VA

$3,300

Aug 29, 2023

MILLONES, PETER

BOOKING HOLDINGS INC. • ATTORNEY

IndividualDARIEN, CT

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

MATNEY, JUSTIN K

SELF EMPLOYED • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualBRISTOL, VA

$3,300

Aug 29, 2023

MATNEY, JOHN

RAPOCA ENERGY COMPANY • PARTNER

IndividualBRISTOL, VA

$3,300

Aug 29, 2023

Sen. Fetterman, John [D-PA]

ID: F000479

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,000

Feb 9, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Nov 29, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 18, 2024

SIMMS, RONALD

RONALD SIMMS REAL ESTATE • PRINCIPAL

IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA

$6,700

Jun 18, 2024

SIMMS, RONALD

IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA

$3,400

Aug 15, 2024

ADLERSTEIN, ARI

SELF EMPLOYED • FINANCIAL ADVISOR

IndividualMERION STATION, PA

$3,300

Dec 12, 2024

GOLDMAN, AMIR

SUSQUEHANNA INTERNATIONAL GROUP • VENTURE CAPITALIST

IndividualBALA CYNWYD, PA

$3,300

Oct 6, 2024

GOLDMAN, AMIR

SUSQUEHANNA INTERNATIONAL GROUP • VENTURE CAPITALIST

IndividualBALA CYNWYD, PA

$3,300

Oct 6, 2024

LEPRINO, TERRY

LEPRINO FOODS • OWNER

IndividualDENVER, CO

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

MAYER, ABRAHAM

AFTON PROPERTIES • PRINCIPAL

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

Dec 12, 2024

Sen. Slotkin, Elissa [D-MI]

ID: S001208

Top Contributors

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS

OrganizationSAULT SAINTE MARIE, MI

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Dec 31, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$3,300

Mar 21, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$3,300

Jun 30, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$3,300

Jun 10, 2024

MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBAL NATION

OrganizationMASHANTUCKET, CT

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Sep 27, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Schatz, Brian [D-HI]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 69 nodes and 89 connections

Total contributions: $89

Top Donors - Sen. Schatz, Brian [D-HI]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

17 Orgs4 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 harmed.

−Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.95
The bill prohibits social media platforms from allowing users under 13 to create accounts (Sec. 103) and bans personalized recommendation systems for users under 17 (Sec. 104), directly restricting core business models of major social media companies like Meta, Google/YouTube, TikTok, etc., which rely on user engagement and data-driven ad targeting.
−Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.80
The bill amends the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) to require schools receiving E-rate broadband subsidies to certify they block social media platforms on school networks (Sec. 202), which could reduce demand for broadband services in educational settings and impose compliance costs on telecom providers that support E-rate funded networks.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Schatz, Brian [D-HI])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

Telecommunications$38,900
from 19 contributions
- WINFREY, CHRISTOPHER$5,800
- ELLEN, DAVID$5,800
- RUTLEDGE, THOMAS M.$5,800
- DEGERONIMO, RICH$2,500
- FISCHER, JESSICA$2,500

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: 62%

Pages: 914-917AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill directly addresses the adolescent mental‑health and loneliness concerns cited in the Project 2025 FTC section by imposing age‑based access limits, banning personalized recommendation systems for minors, and tasking the FTC with enforcement, thereby implementing the policy’s objectives."

Key themes:adolescent mental healthsocial media regulationFTC enforcementpersonalized recommendation systemsage‑based restrictions

— 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.

Federal Trade Commission

Strong

Vector: 74%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 FTC policy aim to protect children from online harms by leveraging FTC authority, addressing data privacy and mental health risks associated with social media, and advocating for stronger safeguards beyond current COPPA protections."

Key themes:child online protectionFTC enforcementdata privacymental health concernsage-based safeguards

Federal Trade Commission

Strong

Vector: 73%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 FTC section aim to protect children from online harms by empowering the FTC to regulate social media platforms, limit data collection and personalized targeting, and address the shortcomings of COPPA. They share a focus on reducing mental health risks and unfair trade practices involving minors."

Key themes:child online protectionFTC enforcementsocial media harmsdata collection limitsparental consent/age restrictions

— 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 Communications Commission

Strong

Vector: 62%

Pages: 882-884AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns strongly with Project 2025's FCC-focused goal of empowering consumers and protecting young children from accessing social media despite age restrictions, particularly through its under-13 access ban and school usage limits. Both emphasize safeguarding minors online and enhancing platform accountability regarding youth exposure."

Key themes:child online safetyage restriction enforcementsocial media regulationconsumer empowermentFTC/FCC oversight

— 849 — Federal Communications Commission Big Tech, and it should look to Section 230 and the Consolidated Reporting Act as potential sources of authority.19 In acting, the FCC could require these platforms to provide greater specificity regarding their terms of service, and it could hold them accountable by prohibiting actions that are inconsistent with those plain and particular terms. Within this framework, Big Tech should be required to offer a transparent appeals process that allows for the challenging of pretextual takedowns or other actions that violate clear rules of the road. l Support legislation that scraps Section 230’s current approach. The FCC should work with Congress on more fundamental Section 230 reforms that go beyond interpreting its current terms. Congress should do so by ensuring that Internet companies no longer have carte blanche to censor protected speech while maintaining their Section 230 protections. As part of those reforms, the FCC should work with Congress to ensure that antidiscrimination provisions are applied to Big Tech—including “back-end” companies that provide hosting services and DDoS protection. Reforms that prohibit discrimination against core political viewpoints are one way to do this and would track the approach taken in a social media law passed in Texas, which was upheld on appeal in late 2022 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.20 In all of this, Congress can make certain points clear. It could focus legislation on dominant, general-use platforms rather than specialized ones. This could include excluding comment sections in online publications, specialized message boards, or communities within larger platforms that self-moderate. Similarly, Congress could legislate in a way that does not require any platform to host illegal content; child pornography; terrorist speech; and indecent, profane, or similar categories of speech that Congress has previously carved out. l Support efforts to empower consumers. The FCC and Congress should work together to formulate rules that empower consumers. Section 230 itself codifies “user control” as an express policy goal and encourages Internet platforms to provide tools that will “empower” users to engage in their own content moderation. As Congress takes up reforms, it should therefore be mindful of how we can return to Internet users the power to control their online experiences. One idea is to empower consumers to choose their own content filters and fact checkers, if any. The FCC should also work with Congress to ensure stronger protections against young children accessing social media sites despite age restrictions that generally prohibit their use of these sites.

Federal Trade Commission

Weak

Vector: 67%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill imposes regulatory restrictions on minors' social media use and tasks the FTC with enforcement, while Project 2025 advocates a limited, educational FTC role and prefers parental empowerment over heavy regulation, resulting only weak thematic overlap."

Key themes:FTC rolechildren's online safetyage verificationparental empowermentdata privacy concerns

— 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 Sen. Schatz, Brian

A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 86-014 Farrington Highway in Waianae, Hawaii, as the "United States Representative Colleen Hanabusa Post Office Building".

119/s/4830

Improving Flood and Agricultural Forecasts Act of 2025

119/s/613

TAME Extreme Weather and Wildfires Act

119/s/1378

Back to All Bills