As a former prosecutor and locally elected official, I care deeply about protecting Connecticut’s children online. The challenges families face in the digital age are real, and our kids deserve meaningful safeguards.
That’s exactly why I’m urging legislators to reject HB 5037 when it comes before the General Law Committee.
This bill is being sold as protecting children on social media. But when you read the actual provisions, what you find isn’t parental empowerment—it’s government control. HB 5037 would let Hartford dictate your family’s screen time, mandate pop-up warnings that research shows don’t work, and impose one-size-fits-all restrictions that ignore the diverse needs of Connecticut families.
HB 5037 imposes a default one-hour daily screen time limit for minors. It restricts notifications to between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m.. It limits who teens can interact with online. These are government mandates applied to every family in the state, not tools offered to parents.
Parents already have the ability to set screen time limits and manage notifications on their children’s devices. What they’re asking for is the ability to approve which apps their kids download in the first place. HB 5037 doesn’t give them that. Instead, it substitutes the legislature’s judgment for parents’ judgment about what’s appropriate for their own children.
The bill also requires platforms to display a full-screen mental health warning for at least 30 seconds every time a minor logs in, with additional warnings after every three hours of use. This sounds proactive, but the evidence is clear: warning labels don’t change behavior.
Research shows over 90% of internet users don’t read terms of service or privacy policies. Only 10% of children understand the concept of paid advertisements on social media. There’s no reason to believe these mandatory pop-ups will fare any better.
As a prosecutor, I saw firsthand how critical it is for young people in crisis to access help. HB 5037’s restrictions on algorithmic recommendations could cut off exactly that access for the teens who need it most.
For LGBTQ+ youth in unsupportive households, algorithmic recommendations help them find community, crisis resources, and support they cannot access offline. Sixty-four percent of LGBTQ+ adults joined online platforms before age 18, with more than half joining specifically to access LGBTQ+ resources. Teens from troubled home environments rely on these same systems to surface mental health resources and support communities. Forcing these young people onto stripped-down, chronological feeds doesn’t make them safer. It makes it harder for them to find help.
HB 5037 could also be expensive for Connecticut to defend. Many efforts to restrict youth access to the internet have faced intense resistance in the courtroom and skeptical judges.
There is an approach that actually empowers parents while avoiding these pitfalls: app store-level parental consent. Here’s how it works: App stores verify users’ ages at account creation. When a minor tries to download an app, the parent receives a notification and can approve or deny the download. One notification, one decision point, one place to manage oversight —rather than navigating dozens of separate consent systems across every platform.
Critically, this approach doesn’t give parents access to their teen’s account content. It preserves teen privacy while giving parents meaningful decision-making authority at the point that matters most: before their child ever downloads an app.
I share the concerns driving HB 5037. Our children face real risks online, and doing nothing isn’t acceptable. But this bill doesn’t give parents the tools they’re asking for. It gives them government mandates, ineffective warnings, and restrictions that will harm vulnerable teens while likely being struck down in court.
Connecticut’s kids deserve real protection. That means empowering parents with actual decision-making authority, not substituting the state’s judgment for theirs. I urge the General Law Committee to reject HB 5037 and pursue app store-level parental consent instead.
Anthony Spinella is a former state prosecutor and member of the Wethersfield Town Council. He practices law in Manchester.