The following was sent to Minnesota House Speaker Lisa Demuth:
Dear Speaker Demuth,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to Article 13. Sec. 8. [325M.335] of HF 2435, which mandates mental health warning labels and timer notifications on social media platforms.
Implementing such requirements curtails individual freedom while placing a disproportionate burden on social media companies, incurring a significant economic impact on Minnesota businesses, both large and small.
The costs associated with developing, implementing, and maintaining these warning labels and pop-up timers would be substantial and would force technology companies to divert time away from more meaningful work, instead requiring them to dedicate their talent and ingenuity to comply with burdensome state requirements. This would foster an unworkable patchwork of regulatory frameworks, where the companies America relies on for global leadership would need to redesign their platforms to appease lawmakers in all fifty states. Such costs would lead to reduced investment and economic activity in our state and, ultimately, job losses for Minnesotans. Social media drives both physical and digital traffic to our businesses. Imposing such regulations could make Minnesota a less attractive place to conduct business as companies consider states with more business-friendly regulatory landscapes.
Although the well-being of our citizens is critically important, studies have not consistently shown the benefits proponents claim. Researchers at Duke University and the University of Delaware, for example, found that time limits on social media and video game use may be ineffective or even increase screen time. The conflicting data from numerous studies warrants further investigation, especially considering the economic ramifications.
Lastly, this section raises constitutional concerns over its impact on free speech. Courts have demonstrated reticence towards content or media blocking, as evidenced by a recent lawsuit in Utah, where restrictions on similar features were challenged. The court found that such laws impose “content-based restrictions on social media companies’ speech.” Further, it acknowledged that minors still have First Amendment rights; taken together, this triggers a high level of constitutional scrutiny. At the end of the day, social media is still “media.” In the likely event that courts deem these pop ups amount to a “cap” or “blocking” of media, the legislation will be summarily thrown out.
I believe there are less intrusive and more collaborative approaches to addressing mental health concerns related to social media use, such as public awareness campaigns promoting responsible usage and other educational initiatives. Such activities would preserve individual freedom without sacrificing user experience on these platforms, which is an inevitable result of this legislation. No one wants to be consistently bothered with annoying pop-up notifications.
I urge you to carefully consider the potential negative economic impacts of this bill and to explore alternative solutions that support both the mental health of our residents and the economic prosperity of our state. I respectfully request that you vote no on legislation containing this language.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Jon Decker
Senior Fellow
Parkview Institute
