Two groups of bipartisan legislators have put together bills that aim to more heavily regulate social media, particularly in its relationship to minors in Colorado. But the groups are running up against an unusual opponent in the legislative process: Gov. Jared Polis.
The pair of bills drawing Polis’ opposition come from both chambers. Senate Bill 25-086 was introduced early in the session and if senators agree to recent amendments to the bill from their House colleagues, the bill will be sent to Polis’ desk. The measure has passed both chambers with majorities above the needed veto override number if Polis does choose to use the power.
House Bill 25-1287 is at an earlier stage in the committee process. The measure passed its first committee hearing April 2, and if lawmakers pass the bill nearer to the end of session, Polis could veto the bill without fear of an override.
But it’s not just the state’s lawmakers that Polis sits across from on these bills. Jefferey Riester, director of legislative affairs at the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, said that the office was in support of the measures as well. All of the state’s district attorneys were also in support of the Senate measure.
Democratic Sen. Lindsey Daugherty, a prime sponsor of SB25-086, told lawmakers at the bill’s first committee hearing that social media platforms have become an illegal and unregulated marketplace for drugs, firearms, sex trafficking and other crimes. “Currently social media companies have policies that prohibit these activities, but their enforcement of the policies is inadequate, which is why we stand here with you today,” Daugherty said.
Republican Sen. Lisa Frizell said that social media platforms, despite being made aware of these illegal activities, are unwilling to enforce their own rules. She said that the bill as introduced would help protect minors and consumers by requiring annual reporting to the state’s AG, requiring a company to evaluate users engaging in illegal activity within 72 hours and terminate them within 24 if they’re in violation of the policy. It would also require them to respond to search warrants issued by Colorado courts within 72 hours and they’d need to have a dedicated contact process for Colorado law enforcement agencies.
Frizell noted that the bill also doesn’t require social media companies to collect more data than they already do.
Brian Mason, the DA for Adams and Broomfield counties, said that while juveniles can’t legally go into a gun store to buy a gun, they can go to a social media marketplace. Mason was testifying on behalf of himself and other DAs in support of the measure.
He told the committee that when a DA’s office or a law enforcement agency sends a lawful subpoena or search warrant to the social media companies, that they often go unaddressed.
Michael McReynolds, the legislative liaison for the Governor’s Office of Information Technology, said that while the administration shared the goal of protecting children online, that the bill had fundamental flaws and would have unintended negative consequences.
“The definition of prohibited activity is overly broad and vague in the bill, encompassing a wide range of speech that may be, in fact, protected by the First Amendment,” McReynolds said. “This could lead to censorship of legitimate expression and chill the free exchange of ideas online. Moreover, age verifications and methods, as would be required by this bill, also raise those First Amendment concerns.”
Riester, speaking at the bill’s hearing on the House side, told lawmakers that his office did think that the bill was constitutional and wouldn’t violate protected speech.
McReynolds also said that the bill’s requirements regarding age verification were in conflict with existing Colorado data privacy laws.
Democratic Sen. Dylan Roberts noted at the committee hearing that the flat out opposition from the governor’s office was unique. “I’ve been at the legislature for seven years now, and I have almost never seen the governor’s office come forward to a committee, the first committee, in an opposition position.”
“Not even asking for amendments, just ‘We don’t like this bill,’” Roberts added. “I find that to be shocking, to be honest.”
Roberts also noted that he didn’t see any part in the bill that required age verification.
McReynolds said that age verification was the only logical way to get to the requirements being prescribed in the bill.
The bill’s passage to its final stage of legislative action has not been without change. At the bill’s first committee hearing, amendments were made in response to stakeholder feedback, according to Daugherty. She noted that the amendments in the committee hearing eliminated certain reporting requirements, made changes to exempt broadband providers and clarified other parts of the bill.
Other amendments to the bill addressed an unintended consequence of adding gaming to the reporting requirements, which removed the exemption they had from a previous bill; the removal of language relating to aiding and abetting as it related to the Colorado Consumer Protection Act; and a change in the timeline around evaluating and reviewing illegal activity on social media platforms.
HB25-1287 is more directly targeted at protecting minors who are using social media. The bill was amended heavily in its first committee hearing, and the discussion in the committee was related to the bill as amended.
Democratic Rep. Meghan Lukens, one of the bill’s prime sponsors, said that the bill creates tools for minors to control their experience on social media platforms.
“It disables covered features so kids are not constantly exposed to harmful, addictive aspects of social media. This includes personalized recommendation algorithms, auto play features, including automatic playing of media content, infinite scrolling or pagination, that loads additional content as long as the user continues scrolling, disappearing content feeds, notification and alert features, rewards features, including rewards for time spent on social media platforms, engagement features, such as comments, likes, tags and other forms of feedback, geolocation features that share or provide information about the geolocation of a minor user to the other users on the social media platform,” Lukens said.
She added that it also allowed users to schedule time limits and breaks and allows for easy reporting of unwanted contact.
The bill also has an age assurance requirement to ensure that kids receive the protections outlined in the bills. Lukens noted that the bill doesn’t require a specific method for the age assurance process, but just required that it be 95% accurate. But it wouldn’t be effective for two years as litigation plays out over the legality of age verification measures.
McReynolds, testifying again in opposition for the governor, said that the bill would have unintended consequences for online privacy and that it was in contrast to Colorado data laws and the Colorado Privacy Act.
Despite the governor’s opposition, the bill cleared its committee hearing on April 2.