Bill aimed at protecting youth online considered
A proposal meant to protect children’s private information and provide parental tools to monitor their online safety was heard by the Banking, Commerce and Insurance Committee Feb. 3.

LB504, introduced by Lincoln Sen. Carolyn Bosn at the request of Gov. Jim Pillen, would create the Age-Appropriate Online Design Code Act. Under the bill, a covered online service would be required to “exercise reasonable care” in protecting user data and in the design and implementation of covered online services to prevent harms such as compulsive use, severe emotional distress, identity theft and severe psychological harm.
A covered online service is defined as one that operates in Nebraska, is reasonably likely to be accessed by minors and meets certain revenue or volume thresholds. The bill would not apply to government entities.
Among other provisions, the bill would require a covered online service to provide users with “easy-to-use tools” that limit communications from other users, prevent the viewing of personal data, control in-game purchases and other transactions and place limits on the amount of time a user spends on the service.
LB504 also would place limits on data retention and sharing and would require a covered online service to treat all users as minors unless they have knowledge that they are not. Parents would be provided with the ability to view, manage and control a child’s privacy and account settings. The bill defines a “child” as an individual who is 13 or younger.
The state attorney general’s office would enforce the bill’s provisions and violations could result in a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 per violation.
Bosn said the proposal is the product of a bipartisan effort to give parents the tools they need to keep children safe online, while not requiring the sort of content moderation that could result in First Amendment free speech challenges.
Social media has consequences for the neurobiological development and mental health of children, she said, and LB504 would implement some of the recommendations from a 2023 US surgeon general’s advisory report aimed at curbing those harms.
“We think about safe design features in every other product we provide our most vulnerable children,” Bosn said. “So why wouldn’t we do that online?”
Lincoln pediatrician Philip Boucher testified in favor of the proposal. Children lack the ability to self-regulate, he said, and app developers know how to keep them interacting with platforms through “constant dopamine hits.” As a result, he said, anxiety, depression and self-harm among youth has reached alarming levels and continues to rise.
“It’s hard to be a kid right now; it’s also hard to be a parent,” Boucher said. “Today’s kids are living under a microscope — and inside a pressure cooker — where every thought, every picture, every moment can be documented, judged and used against them.”
Jill Edmundson, who spent 25 years in software development, also spoke in support of LB504. She said her 9-year-old daughter inadvertently became engaged with “pro-anorexia” content during the pandemic and subsequently was diagnosed with the disease.
Technology companies feasibly could address the kind of issues that led her daughter down that path, Edmundson said, but won’t unless legally required to do so.
“Absent commonsense legislation, we are all living on borrowed time — and our children are the ones who are going to pay the price,” Edmundson said.
Nebraska College of Law professor Kyle Langvardt testified in favor of the bill, calling it “fully compatible” with the First Amendment.
Speaking on his own behalf, Langvardt said LB504 would not regulate online content but rather product design. As a result, he said, the bill would be the equivalent of “time, place or manner” restrictions on free speech — such as an ordinance that prohibits loud music after a certain hour — that consistently have been deemed constitutional.
Amy Bos, representing online trade association NetChoice, opposed the bill. She disagreed with the contention that the law does not regulate content. The broad definitions in LB504 do not provide meaningful guidelines to businesses and could lead regulators to target speech they dislike, she said.
“By covering any service reasonably likely to be accessed by minors, this bill would regulate most of the internet,” Bos said. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected such sweeping attempts to restrict online speech.”
Also testifying in opposition was Dylan Severino of ACLU Nebraska. While supporting the bill’s overall goal of child safety online, he said enforcement by the state’s attorney general could be arbitrary and partisan depending upon who occupies the office.
For example, Severino said, one attorney general might deem information provided to minors on guns to be harmful, while another might attempt to prohibit information on gender identity.
“If anything, this bill has made it more clear that legislating content to protect minors is simply impossible in practice,” he said. “The time and effort would be much better spent in education and outreach so that families can protect themselves.”
The committee took no immediate action on LB504.
