Overview
Title
To require certain interactive computer services to adopt and operate technology verification measures to ensure that users of the platform are not minors, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The SCREEN Act is a plan to make sure websites use special tools to check that people aren't kids before letting them see certain grown-up stuff online. It also says the government should check these websites to make sure they follow the rules and keep people's information safe.
Summary AI
S. 737, also known as the “SCREEN Act,” aims to protect minors from accessing online pornographic content. It requires interactive computer services that host such content to implement technology that verifies the age of users and prevents minors from accessing harmful material. The bill also mandates that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) conduct audits to ensure compliance and issue guidance to assist platforms. Additionally, covered platforms must protect user data collected for age verification and are subject to penalties for violations.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, known as the "Shielding Children's Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net Act" or the "SCREEN Act," seeks to limit minors' access to harmful online content, specifically pornography. The Act mandates that certain interactive computer services, referred to as "covered platforms," adopt age verification technologies. This legislation aims to fill gaps left by previous efforts, which have been criticized as ineffective or struck down by the courts. The Act outlines specific responsibilities for these platforms, such as choosing suitable verification technology and ensuring data security. It also provides roles for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in enforcing the law and conducting audits to ensure compliance.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the main issues with the bill is the lack of clarity around what constitutes acceptable "age verification technology." Without specific guidelines, platforms could interpret the requirements differently, leading to inconsistent implementation and enforcement. Another concern is the broad definition of "covered platform," which might unintentionally include services not planned to be regulated, thereby creating legal and operational confusion. Privacy concerns are notably under-addressed, as the bill anticipates collecting personal data without detailing robust privacy protections, which could spark ethical and legal challenges. Additionally, there is no specified budget for the mandated GAO report, potentially leaving funding details unclear.
Impact on the Public Broadly
For the general public, the bill could mean a significant reduction in minors' access to harmful online content, addressing a long-standing concern for many parents and guardians. However, ambiguity in the bill, particularly regarding the age verification process, could result in varying experiences across different platforms, ultimately affecting user access and privacy perception. Some users might face additional barriers or intrusions into their privacy depending on how the age verification is implemented.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Technology Companies: These entities, identified as "covered platforms," would bear the responsibility of choosing and implementing effective age verification technologies. This could require significant investment in developing or acquiring technology solutions and ensuring compliance with data protection standards. Companies might face increased legal risks due to potential challenges in meeting ill-defined requirements or defending against non-compliance allegations.
Parents and Educators: Those concerned about online safety for children may view the bill positively, as it focuses on reducing minors' access to harmful content. However, they might be concerned about the actual effectiveness and privacy implications of the proposed age verification technologies, given the past track record of similar initiatives.
Privacy and Data Protection Advocates: There is potential criticism from privacy advocates regarding the lack of detailed privacy protections in the bill. The legislation could lead to increased data collection without adequate safeguards, which raises concerns over the potential misuse or overreach in handling users' personal information.
The Federal Government: Agencies like the FTC would assume substantial enforcement roles, requiring additional resources and clarity to effectively oversee and audit platforms as mandated. Without specific budget allocations, these responsibilities might strain existing resources or delay effective oversight.
In summary, while the SCREEN Act aims to tackle an essential public issue by protecting minors from accessing inappropriate online content, its success largely hinges on addressing the significant issues of clarity, privacy protection, and effective implementation to ensure it serves its intended purpose efficiently and fairly.
Issues
The absence of a clear definition for 'age verification technology' in Section 2 could lead to ambiguity about which technologies are acceptable, thereby affecting the uniformity and effective implementation of the Act's provisions.
The unrestricted authority granted to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) by not limiting this Act's authority under Section 7(3) may raise concerns about potential overreach or inconsistent application of legal standards.
The reliance on technology verification measures assumes feasibility and effectiveness without citing supporting evidence or studies in Section 2, which might lead to practical implementation challenges.
Section 3's definition of 'harmful to minors' is subjective, relying on judgments about prurient interest and lacking serious value, which could lead to inconsistent application and potentially infringe on First Amendment rights.
The broad criteria for defining 'covered platform' in Section 3 could inadvertently include entities not intended to be regulated under the Act, creating potential legal and operational ambiguity.
Section 4 and its lack of specific guidance on acceptable age verification technologies might lead to varied compliance standards across platforms, raising concerns about the consistency and fairness of enforcement.
The bill's failure to address potential privacy concerns related to the data collected for age verification, as noted in Sections 2, 4, and 8, could lead to significant ethical and legal challenges concerning user data protection.
Section 6 does not specify the frequency or nature of audits to be conducted by the Commission, which could lead to inconsistent application or unnecessary expenditures, impacting the effective oversight of covered platforms.
There is ambiguity in Section 5 about how consultation with individuals will be conducted or their input utilized, leading possibly to inefficiencies or misallocated resources in enforcing the Act's requirements.
Section 8 does not identify a budget or financial allocation for the GAO report, which may result in unclear funding responsibilities and affect the timely and effective analysis of the Act's impact.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this act states that it can be referred to as the “Shielding Children's Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net Act” or the “SCREEN Act.”
2. Findings; sense of Congress Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress finds that prior efforts to protect minors from online pornography, such as using filtering software, have been ineffective and highlights the growing problem of minors accessing harmful content online. The text suggests the use of age verification technology as a more effective way to prevent minors from accessing pornographic content while noting Congress's interest in protecting minors’ well-being.
3. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines key definitions for terms used in the Act, including "child pornography," "commission," "covered platform," and others. It explains what constitutes harmful content for minors and descriptions of digital services and technology required to restrict such content from minors.
4. Technology verification measures Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Covered platforms, starting one year after the law is enacted, must implement technology checks to verify user ages, ensuring that minors cannot access harmful content. These platforms can choose their methods for verification, may hire third parties to assist, and must keep user data safe and private, only retaining it as long as necessary.
5. Consultation requirements Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
To enforce the requirements of section 4, the Commission must consult with experts from various fields, including computer science, online child safety, consumer protection, technology verification, and data security. These experts help determine if a user on a platform is not a minor.
6. Commission requirements Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines that the Commission is responsible for conducting regular audits of specific platforms to ensure they follow rules, make the audit procedures public, and detail the documents needed for compliance. Additionally, the Commission will provide guidance on meeting these requirements but clarifies that such guidance does not create legal rights or obligations and will only enforce violations of the actual law.
7. Enforcement Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text explains that breaking section 4 of the Act is considered an unfair or deceptive practice under existing U.S. law, specifically the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act. The FTC is given the same powers to enforce section 4 as it does under the FTC Act, and violators will face the same penalties. The Act does not interfere with any other legal authority the FTC has.
8. GAO report Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires that, within two years of certain platforms having to meet new rules, the top U.S. government accountant reports to Congress on how well the technology and data security measures are working, how compliant the platforms are, the effects of these measures on people's behavior and society, and offers suggestions for improvements in law enforcement and legislation.
9. Severability clause Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
If any part of the Act is found to be unconstitutional, the rest of the Act still remains in effect and can be applied to other people or situations.