We oppose Illinois HB 5511, which violates the First Amendment by mandating age verification systems that limit minors’ access to lawful speech and compelling platforms to replace algorithmically curated feeds with chronological ones — restrictions courts have repeatedly struck down in other states. This bill also creates serious privacy risks by forcing the collection and sharing of sensitive data for all users, ironically putting the very children it aims to protect at greater risk of exploitation.
NetChoice Testimony in Opposition to Illinois HB 5511, the Children’s Social Media Safety Act
May 27, 2026
Dear Chair Castro, Vice-Chair Cunningham and Members of the Senate Executive Committee:
On behalf of NetChoice, a trade association working to make the internet safe for free enterprise and free expression, we write in opposition to House Bill 5511, the Children’s Social Media Safety Act. While we share the sponsor’s goal to better protect minors from harmful content online, HB 5511 suffers from significant constitutional and practical flaws that would harm—not help—child safety. As written:
- HB 5511’s core provisions are unconstitutional under the First Amendment—and already being actively litigated in other states
- HB 5511 would put Illinois residents’ privacy and data at risk, leaving them vulnerable to breaches and crime
- HB 5511 imposes vague standards that are technically infeasible and would stifle innovation
HB 5511’s Age Verification Mandate Violates the First Amendment
Section 10 requires device manufacturers and operating system providers to implement age verification systems, and Section 15 effectively prohibits algorithmic content feeds to minors without parental consent. These provisions implicate two independent First Amendment violations.
Age verification requirements that gate access to lawful speech have been repeatedly struck down by courts. In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. 786 (2011), the Supreme Court rejected California’s ban on minors accessing violent video games, even with parental consent exceptions. The Court held that the First Amendment protects minors’ rights to receive lawful speech and that the government cannot condition that access on age verification or parental approval.
HB 5511’s age verification mandate functions identically. It conditions minors’ access to protected speech on verification mechanisms and default restrictions. Courts have found such requirements unconstitutional. In NetChoice v. Bonta (California), the Ninth Circuit rejected similar age restrictions. And just recently, in NetChoice v. Murrill, a Louisiana federal court permanently enjoined that state’s age verification law on First Amendment grounds.
Beyond restricting minors’ access to speech, HB 5511 compels platforms to alter how they present lawful content. Section 15 prohibits “addictive feeds”—essentially requiring chronological feeds instead of algorithmically curated ones for minors. This constitutes compelled speech directed at platforms.
In Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 718 (2024), the Supreme Court emphatically held that algorithmic curation and content feeds are protected expression under the First Amendment. The Court recognized platforms’ editorial discretion as core First Amendment activity. Because HB 5511 would prevent platforms from exercising that editorial discretion—by mandating default chronological-only feeds for minors—it violates the First Amendment. The bill effectively compels platforms to present a government-mandated content arrangement rather than their own distinctive expressive offering.
HB 5511 Creates Unprecedented Privacy and Security Risks for Minors
Section 10 mandates that device manufacturers and operating system providers collect birth dates, ages and age bracket data from all users, and share that information with covered developers through digital signals. This creates a massive, centralized database of sensitive personal information about Illinois children—precisely the data that bad actors actively target.
The bill attempts to mitigate this with encryption requirements, but encrypted data is not impenetrable. History demonstrates that even well-intentioned systems collecting sensitive children’s data—school records, educational apps, healthcare portals—suffer breaches. The bill provides no guarantee that the data collected will remain secure, and gives no meaningful recourse to families whose children’s data is compromised.
Ironically, while claiming to protect children, HB 5511 forces platforms to collect the very sensitive personal data that puts minors at greatest risk. This is the opposite of privacy protection.
The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), 15 U.S.C. § 6501 et seq., already provides comprehensive protections for children under 13. COPPA requires verifiable parental consent, restricts data collection from minors, prohibits targeted advertising and mandates disclosure of data practices. The Federal Trade Commission actively enforces these requirements. HB 5511 creates an overlapping, conflicting state-level regime that duplicates COPPA without adding demonstrated safety benefits.
HB 5511 Imposes Vague Standards that are Technically Infeasible
The definition of “addictive feed” relies on subjective language. What percentage of a platform’s offerings constitutes an “addictive feed as a significant part of the services offered”? The bill provides no objective standard, making compliance impossible. Moreover, detecting which user is actually accessing a device is technically complex. Minors access shared devices, borrowed equipment and school computers. The bill provides no practical mechanism for platforms to reliably identify which specific user is present, making age-based restrictions extremely difficult to implement uniformly.
It is also important to address a common misconception: personalized feeds are not inherently unsafe for children. In fact, when properly designed, personalized algorithms serve as powerful safety tools. These systems can filter out harmful content, reduce exposure to bullying and harassment and surface age-appropriate educational and entertainment content that matches a young person’s interests and developmental needs.
Personalization allows platforms to learn what content keeps children engaged in positive ways—whether that’s science experiments, art tutorials, sports highlights or educational videos. The same technology that can recommend content can also identify and demote harmful material before children ever see it. Chronological feeds, by contrast, provide no filtering mechanism and expose users to whatever content appears in their network, regardless of its appropriateness. Mandating chronological-only feeds for minors would actually remove an important layer of protection and curation that helps keep young users safe.
Conclusion
Platforms offer robust parental controls today. YouTube has YouTube Kids. Instagram offers Supervised Accounts. Meta provides Family Pairing and extensive privacy controls. TikTok, Snapchat and other platforms offer age-appropriate settings and parental involvement features. Parents have unprecedented tools to manage their children’s online experiences.
The issue is not lack of tools—it is parental awareness and engagement. HB 5511 assumes government mandates are superior to parental choice and existing tools. That assumption warrants serious scrutiny. Rather than imposing heavy-handed default restrictions, policymakers should focus on education, transparency and empowering parents to use the tools already available.
NetChoice supports evidence-based child safety measures rooted in constitutional principles. HB 5511 is neither. It imposes vague, technically infeasible and unconstitutional requirements; creates unnecessary privacy risks through mandatory age data collection; duplicates federal law; and stifles competition and innovation.
We urge the Committee to reject HB 5511 and engage with industry stakeholders, child safety experts and parents on solutions that are practical, evidence-based and constitutionally sound. As always, we offer ourselves as a resource to discuss any of these issues with you in further detail, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide you with our thoughts on this important matter (The views of NetChoice expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of all NetChoice members.).
Sincerely,
Amy Bos
Vice President of Government Affairs, NetChoice
NetChoice is a trade association that works to make the internet safe for free enterprise and free expression.
