Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
States are taking different approaches to social-media rules, especially for minors: some limit account creation, some regulate feeds and notifications, and others require parental controls or age checks. There is no single national rule, and a measure’s status—enacted, still being written, challenged in court, or merely proposed—can matter as much as its text. This overview reflects information available through October 9, 2026; it is representative, not a complete state-by-state legal survey.
What states are changing—and why the details matter
State measures generally address one or more of four things: who may open an account, how a platform verifies age and obtains parental consent, which features minors can use, and what supervision tools parents must receive. A requirement aimed at a minor’s account is not the same as a restriction on a feed or notification feature, and neither automatically means a young person is barred from all platform content.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The differences matter for privacy and speech as well as access. Age checks can require platforms to process sensitive information; parental-consent rules can affect a minor’s ability to create an account; and feature restrictions can shape what users see or when they receive notifications. Opponents have challenged some laws under the First Amendment and related doctrines. Courts have reached different procedural outcomes, so one state’s litigation history does not establish another state’s law or status.
How broad is the legislative activity?
The National Conference of State Legislatures’ 2026 tracker reports at least 40 states and Puerto Rico with more than 300 bills and resolutions addressing social media and children during the 2026 legislative session. That is a count of legislative activity, not enacted laws. A Washington State Senate committee staff report from October 2025, citing NCSL, said 45 states and Puerto Rico had introduced more than 300 measures concerning children’s internet use and internet-based communications, and at least 20 states enacted new laws in 2025. Those measures covered a wider field—including study commissions, design codes, school digital-literacy policies, and cellphone rules—not just social-media account laws. These differently scoped counts should not be treated as a like-for-like year-to-year comparison.
#1 Best Overall
How the state approaches compare
The examples below show distinct approaches. Their legal status and the scope of the cited source are part of the comparison; they should not be read as a complete inventory of state policy.
| State and measure | Who or what it addresses | Core requirement | Privacy or implementation detail | Status described by the cited source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York SAFE for Kids Act | Users under 18 and covered platforms’ feeds and nighttime notifications | Restrict qualifying personalized feeds and overnight notifications unless parental consent is obtained | At least one age-assurance method besides government ID; age and consent data limited to the intended purpose and deleted or de-identified immediately afterward | Final rules were to be published July 29, 2026; the Act’s stated effective date is January 25, 2027 |
| California SB 976 | Minors and online platforms, including social media | Prohibits addictive feeds and certain features for minors without verifiable parental consent | Age-assurance and consent methods are part of a rulemaking overseen by the Attorney General | Enacted in 2024; proposed regulations published May 15, 2026, with adoption deadline of January 1, 2027 |
| Nebraska Revised Statute 86-1703 | Minor account holders and social-media companies | Generally bars a minor from becoming an account holder without verified express parental consent; requires parent supervision tools | Reasonable age verification; identifying information cannot be retained after verification | Statute lists July 1, 2026 as operative date |
| Louisiana Revised Statute 51:1752 | Account holders and social-media companies | Requires age verification at a level appropriate to information-practice risks, or minor accommodations for all account holders; minor accounts require express parental or guardian consent | Several consent methods are permitted; the statute offers the universal-accommodations alternative to age verification | Effective date listed as July 1, 2025, following a 2024 amendment |
| Illinois SB 2316 | Proposed rules for minors’ accounts and access | Would require parental consent and propose a 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. access restriction | Proposed third-party age verification | Bill, not enacted law; last action recorded June 2, 2025, re-referred to Assignments |
New York regulates particular platform features
New York’s SAFE for Kids Act, signed in June 2024, focuses on what covered platforms show minors and when they send notifications, rather than making all platform access conditional on consent. The New York Attorney General’s July 2026 release describes an “addictive feed” as one that personalizes content using user data and presents a continuing stream, often in a non-chronological order and including accounts the user does not follow. The release says the rules cover “Addictive Online Platforms”: services displaying user-generated content where users spend at least 20 percent of their time on addictive feeds.
For users under 18, covered companies must restrict these personalized feeds and nighttime notifications unless parental consent is obtained. The rules described by the Attorney General also require platforms to determine that users over 17 are adults before giving them access to the covered feeds or notifications. Platforms must offer at least one age-assurance option other than government ID, use a high-accuracy method, test it annually, and keep test results for at least 10 years. The release says age and consent data may be used only for the intended purpose and must be deleted or de-identified immediately afterward.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Minors must affirmatively seek access to restricted features and consent to parent notification; either parents or minors may withdraw consent. The Attorney General’s release says users should not be blocked from general platform access or content solely because consent is not provided. It gives January 25, 2027 as the Act’s effective date, 180 days after the stated July 29, 2026 publication date for final rules in the State Register. The release also says the Attorney General may seek civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation, among other remedies. These dates and implementation details are from the July 2026 release; subsequent guidance could affect how platforms implement them.
California has an enacted statute and a separate rulemaking process
California SB 976 was signed in September 2024. The California Attorney General’s summary says it makes it unlawful for online platforms, including social-media services, to provide addictive feeds and certain features to minors without verifiable parental consent. The statute assigns the Attorney General responsibility for regulations covering age assurance and parental-consent methods.
On the Attorney General’s page, proposed regulations had been published in the Notice Register on May 15, 2026, and the department was reviewing public comments. The page says the Office of Administrative Law would review the rulemaking record after that process, and sets January 1, 2027 as the deadline to adopt regulations. The statute is enacted; the detailed regulations were still being developed in the cited account. Those are distinct stages, not interchangeable descriptions of the law.
Nebraska and Louisiana tie access to age checks and parental consent
Nebraska: account eligibility and parent supervision
Nebraska Revised Statute 86-1703 generally bars a social-media company from permitting a minor to become an account holder, subject to parental-consent provisions. The company must use reasonable age verification and may use a third-party vendor. Identifying information cannot be retained after verification, and a parent’s express consent must itself be verified.
The statute also requires tools that let a parent view a minor’s posts and messages, control privacy and account settings, and monitor or limit time on the platform. Its listed operative date is July 1, 2026. These are account and supervision requirements, distinct from New York’s rules for specified feed and notification features.
Louisiana: verify age or apply minor accommodations to everyone
Louisiana Revised Statute 51:1752 requires social-media companies to make commercially reasonable efforts to verify account holders’ ages at a level appropriate to the risks of their information practices, or apply the chapter’s minor accommodations to all account holders. It also prohibits minor accounts without express parental or guardian consent and lists several ways that consent may be obtained.
The statute records July 1, 2025 as its effective date, after a 2024 amendment changed the earlier date. The choice between age verification and applying minor accommodations universally is a notable design difference: the statute does not describe age checks as the only route to compliance.
Illinois illustrates why a bill is not a law
Illinois SB 2316, titled the Parental Consent Social Media Act, proposed express parental consent for minor accounts, third-party age verification, and a restriction on minor access from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. The Illinois General Assembly’s status page records its last action as June 2, 2025, when it was re-referred to Assignments. That status supports describing it as a bill with that recorded action—not as an enacted requirement. A bill’s proposal alone does not create a rule for users or platforms.
What litigation says—and does not say—about enforcement
Constitutional challenges are part of the practical picture because these laws can affect minors’ and adults’ access to lawful speech, privacy, and platform design. The available examples show that court proceedings can change whether a law is enforceable while a case continues; they do not establish a single nationwide result.
Best Value
Mississippi: a sequence of injunctions and a stay
A Washington State Senate committee staff report recounts that a district court preliminarily enjoined Mississippi HB 1126 in 2024. According to that October 2025 report, the Fifth Circuit vacated the injunction and remanded in April 2025; the district court enjoined the law again in June; and the Fifth Circuit stayed that injunction in July. The report says the U.S. Supreme Court declined NetChoice’s emergency application in August 2025, leaving the Act in effect pending judicial review at the time of the report. This is a dated account in a legislative staff document, not confirmation of the case’s status on October 9, 2026.
Florida: enforcement while an appeal proceeded
A 2026 Florida Senate bill analysis says the Eleventh Circuit stayed a district court’s preliminary injunction, allowing Florida’s law to be enforced while an appeal proceeded. The analysis describes the law as barring accounts for minors under 14 and requiring parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds. It also quotes a court’s concern that a state’s authority to enforce parental prohibitions does not automatically give it authority to prevent children from hearing or saying anything without parental permission. That quoted concern belongs to the court discussion reported in the Florida analysis; it is not a universal ruling on all state measures. The cited account does not establish whether later proceedings changed the status.
How to tell what a rule means for a particular user
Before treating a headline as a current requirement, check the measure’s actual status and scope. A useful check is:
- Identify the legal instrument. Is it an enacted statute, a final regulation, a proposed rule, a bill, or a court order?
- Read the covered group and service. Does it apply to minors, all account holders, a particular type of platform, or only specified features?
- Check the mechanism. Is the requirement age verification, parental consent, account restrictions, feed defaults, notification limits, or parent controls?
- Look for privacy safeguards and alternatives. Check what information may be collected, who may process it, how long it may be retained, and whether the law permits an alternative to age checks.
- Confirm the date and litigation posture. Effective dates, rulemaking deadlines, injunctions, stays, and appeals can change what is operative. For current questions, consult the state legislature or regulator and the relevant court docket.
- Do not assume a restriction blocks all access. Some measures concern particular features or account creation, not every way of viewing content. The law’s text and implementing rules determine the distinction.
The examples here do not establish what every other state requires. A state not discussed should be checked against its own current statutes, regulator materials, and court records rather than inferred from a neighboring state’s approach.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
