Concerns Regarding MO HB 1887

Dear Senator,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to House Bill 1887, particularly the provisions within the House Committee Substitute that incorporate components of social media regulation and AI restrictions. While intended to protect certain individuals, the bill introduces substantial constitutional challenges and practical concerns for the digital economy.

The bill’s proposed restrictions on “addictive or manipulative design features” — specifically naming infinite-scroll mechanisms and auto-playing content — as well as its ban on serving paid advertising to minors, raise serious First Amendment issues. Courts have consistently found that such laws impose “content-based restrictions on social media companies’ speech.” At the end of the day, social media is still “media,” and these regulations amount to an unconstitutional “cap” on the amount of content that can be aired on a digital platform. This is akin to blocking the commercials one would view on Nickelodeon or Disney Channel.

Furthermore, by mandating a ban on accounts for those under 16 without a verified parent or guardian, this bill undermines parental discretion. Parents should have the primary authority to assess their children’s maturity and make informed decisions about their online activities.

The legislation also suffers from significant compliance and privacy risks:

• Vague Standards: The requirement for social media platforms to implement a “secure age-verification process” for all Missouri users forces companies to choose between facing massive liability or collecting even more sensitive biometric information or government IDs to satisfy the bill’s requirements. This would widen the attack surface for hackers and other bad actors who seek access to this sensitive information.
• Unworkable Patchwork: By creating Missouri-specific standards for algorithms and advertising, this bill adds to a patchwork of state regulations that create insurmountable barriers for smaller companies, stifling competition and innovation.
• Liability Risks: The creation of a civil cause of action with the potential for liquidated damages of up to $150,000 per violation in some instances represents a significant threat to the digital economy and could be exploited by trial lawyers to the detriment of Missouri’s business climate.

In summary, I urge you to reject HB 1887. Its proposed restrictions on legal speech raise significant constitutional concerns, the age-verification requirements create compliance as well as privacy challenges, and its regulatory approach is ultimately impractical for the digital economy.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Jon Decker
Senior Fellow, Parkview Institute