Connecticut lawmakers deserve credit for taking on one of the most difficult and most important issues in technology policy: how to improve online safety for younger users. Parents have stressed that they want tools that help them guide their children, and policymakers understandably strive to respond to growing concerns about how children experience digital spaces.

House Bill 5037 reflects those commendable intentions. However, as drafted, the bill risks taking away the many tools parents already have, and replacing it with a system that undermines privacy protections for all consumers, and raises serious First Amendment concerns.

HB 5037 would impose sweeping requirements on platforms that recommend or prioritize user-generated content. The bill restricts how services can use personal or device information to recommend content to minors unless age verification or parental consent requirements are met. Also, the bill mandates recurring warning labels about mental health risks, limits notifications, requires default content restrictions, and establishes strict design mandates.

While well-intentioned, these prescriptive rules heighten concerns about access to information, and privacy. 

Age verification requirements, in particular, raise pivotal privacy questions due to the additional personal information companies would have to collect to prove compliance. The more accurate an age assurance system aims to be, the more sensitive information it often requires. This can include requiring government IDs, biometric or facial recognition data, or additional personal details.

Creating new systems that collect and process this data increases risks for users, including minors, while moving further away from widely accepted data-minimization principles. Policies meant to protect children online shouldn’t unintentionally require families to share more personal information than they do today. 

The bill also raises significant constitutional concerns. Courts have repeatedly held that protecting minors doesn’t grant the government a generalized power to restrict lawful speech or control how information is presented to users. Teens, like adults, have First Amendment rights, including the right to access information and engage in online communities. Mandating how platforms prioritize content or requiring repeated warning labels can cross into compelled speech and content-based regulation, areas where courts have consistently expressed skepticism.

Furthermore, HB 5037 prohibits operators from sending certain notifications to a covered minor, unless between 8am and 9pm ET. Such requirements inevitably require that covered operators track when it is nighttime in a given device’s location. This requirement therefore effectively mandates location-based tracking of minors’ devices, thus undermining the privacy of the very population the bill is designed to protect.

Requiring covered operators to track their users serves no benefit, particularly since covered operators regularly offer users the option to turn off notification and location tracking themselves.

None of these concerns diminish the importance of addressing youth safety online. For some teens, online spaces are a critical way to find belonging and resources they may not have in their local environment. Policies that are too broad may inadvertently limit those positive experiences or push services to restrict access altogether to avoid legal risk. 

A more effective path forward would amplify tools and practices that already exist. Many services offer parental controls, teen accounts, time limits, privacy protections by default for younger users, and other features to tailor online experiences to individual developmental needs.

Supporting digital citizenship education in schools, which has been codified into law in states like New Jersey, can help parents and children better understand how to use these tools responsibly. Instead of rigid technical mandates, lawmakers should pursue risk-based approaches that encourage innovation while providing clear, workable guidance that preserves American constitutional rights. 

Moreover, tailoring policy to reflect different age groups is essential. Treating all users under 18 as a single category ignores the reality that a high school student conducting research online has very different needs than an 11 year-old. Aligning with the existing federal standard for children under 13, would help ensure policies are consistent.

Connecticut lawmakers should be applauded for efforts to protect youth online. The state has an opportunity to lead by crafting legislation that protects children without sacrificing privacy, innovation, or free speech. 

Lawmakers, educators, parents, and technology providers share the same ultimate goal: safer online experiences for young people. Achieving that goal requires policies that empower families, rather than one-size-fits-all rules. By refining HB 5037 to reflect these principles, Connecticut can advance youth safety in a way that is both technologically feasible and constitutionally sound. 

Kyle Sepe is the Northeast Region State Policy Manager for the Computer & Communications Industry Association.