Utah gets a re-do on its social media law. But it’s doing the same thing

Utah is being sued over the constitutionality of its law that requires most social media companies to accurately check the age of their users using face scans, government identification, social security numbers, or other means—on top of requiring parental consent for minors to use the platforms. Utah was cautioned that this law would violate the Constitution, and now lawmakers are trying to replace it with two more. The problem is that these bills face most of the same problems of the existing law.

The respective authors of S.B. 194 and H.B. 464 hope to minimize social media’s harm to minors, but, in reality, they are going to hamstring far more companies than the current law does. (To their credit, reducing the previous speech-based exemptions does marginally improve the proposals’ constitutional outlook.)

Unfortunately, S.B. 194 would implement a similar age-verification system to the existing law. It requires that the system be 95 percent accurate and concedes the task’s impossibility. It still violates the First Amendment many times over, infringing on individuals’ (including children’s) rights to anonymous speech and to access free speech. The legislation also carries the same cybersecurity risks as the current law, as age verification requires uploading your most sensitive information to companies—including TikTok, which Gov. Spencer Cox has identified as a threat.

To his credit, the author of S.B. 194 encourages the sound security practice of encryption for minors. The problem is that age verification would decimate online privacy in pursuit of protecting it.

Meanwhile, H.B. 464 would allow a Utah minor with a social media account or their parents to sue over “negative mental health outcomes.” In court, they would have to show that the minor was diagnosed with anxiety, depression, or another condition and that it was caused (even partially) by using social media too much. A plaintiff would have a “rebuttable presumption” that the minor’s excessive use caused the condition and that infinite scroll, push notifications, and autoplay led to the overuse. A court would then take this rebuttable presumption as true unless evidence is offered that contests and disproves it.

This approach turns justice on its head, tying the hands of platforms to defend themselves and presuming them guilty. Consider a situation in which a teenager is having a hard time in their social circles and battling depression, and they turn to GitHub to learn coding and make friends. Their parents might wrongfully believe that the platform is the source of their teen’s depression. With H.B. 464, they could sue GitHub, and the company wouldn’t be able to properly defend itself.

The bill’s presumption is reversed, however, in favor of the platform if it limits Utah minors’ account use to three out of every 24 hours, restricts their use overnight, requires guardian consent, and disables autoplay and infinite scroll for minors.

This presents glaring issues. First, the daily hour limit can harm minors who help local businesses create online presences or use LinkedIn for networking. Furthermore, some minors may use the video tools offered on certain platforms to contact and talk with family.

Lawmakers must also understand that if autoplay and infinite scroll harmed minors, this bill would apply to Netflix and all websites that allow users to scroll continuously. Banning these only in some speech-dependent scenarios may violate the Constitution.

Utah lawmakers have an opportunity to reconsider how they approach social media regulation. Precisely because every individual’s situation and needs are unique, lawmakers should not dictate what is best for Utahns’ children. Even with the best of intentions, these potential replacements for a severely flawed law don’t do much better.