Broader Impacts of N.C. House Bill 301 on Children’s Digital Safety and Free Expression
Depiction of both children and parents reacting to tighter age restrictions on social media use. Source: WSJ.
On May 6th, H.B. 301, also known as the “Social Media Protections for Children Under 16” act, was passed in the North Carolina House of Representatives. Minors in North Carolina under 14 would be restricted from making accounts on all social media platforms, while those under 16 would need parental consent to sign up for an account. On both sides of the aisle, there seems to be overwhelming support for the legislation, which passed by a 106 to 6 vote.
Representative Jeff Zenger, who introduced the bill, argued that it would protect against the detrimental psychological and developmental effects of social media content on young minds and do more to hold tech companies accountable. Zenger cited his own experience as a parent, stating that his now-adult children thank him for restricting their social media use growing up.
Findings from a report by the U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory in 2023, as well as a 2025 Pew Research Center report entitled “Teens, Social Media and Mental Health,” support his passionate stance on the topic. These two pieces of research have linked social media platforms to disruptions in adolescent sleep patterns, body image issues, and addictive behaviors stemming from the vast types of content children can access.
Zenger secured the majority vote in the House, showing that many North Carolina lawmakers agree with him that this bill would make important strides in protecting youth mental health, preventing cyberbullying and exposure to harmful content, and encouraging safer recreational activities.
In terms of implementation, the bill’s language states that children seeking to sign up for a social media account would be required to undergo a special, strictly enforced age-verification process. H.B. 301 proposes that tech companies could face fines of up to $50,000 per policy violation, and that families could sue for up to $10,000.
This crackdown is due to the belief among many lawmakers and families that self-regulation by social media platforms is insufficient. Currently, apps like Instagram and TikTok require users to enter their birthdays to ensure that they are 13 years of age or older. However, this is self-attested and allows users to lie to get on the platform. On Instagram, only if a user is suspected of being under 13 and their account is flagged will they be required to verify their age by uploading a form of ID. In some regions, there is also an option to upload a video selfie. That video selfie is sent to one of Instagram’s partner vendors, who use technology to estimate a user’s age.
There are no existing federal mandates in place providing strict protocols for social media platforms when it comes to age verification. This leaves significant wiggle room and loopholes for minors seeking to create social media accounts, leaving many families worried about the dangerous online interactions that their children are exposed to.
Statewide bills like N.C. H.B. 301 aims to address this. However, opponents of the legislation argue that the bill has the potential to encroach on children’s First Amendment rights. Another potentially more pertinent concern for the anti-H.B. 301 camp is the privacy concerns and data collection vulnerabilities that would come with the bill if signed into law.
H.B. 301’s provisions would require a commercial verification process involving the input of children’s photos and sensitive personal data, as well as the input of parents’ data to establish a relationship between a child and their guardian. This information, while limited to the extent possible, could be stored long-term and used irresponsibly by partner companies if they are not vetted properly. Representative Maria Cervania of Wake County notably raised this objection, stating that this information could become easily accessible to hackers and that H.B. 301 does not comprehensively safeguard against those risks.
NetChoice and Chamber of Progress, which are two progressive organizations promoting free enterprise online, echo Representative Cervania’s concerns, while also adding that the law directly undermines past Supreme Court precedent. One especially notable Supreme Court decision in relation to the bill, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, ruled against a California law restricting minors’ access to violent video games without parental consent. The Court reasoned that said video games counted as protected speech under the First Amendment, and that the law was not narrowly tailored enough to meet the state’s proposed objective of preventing psychological harm to minors.
NetChoice v. Moody resulted in a similar outcome, vacating lower Texas and Florida court rulings instituting social media content moderation restrictions. A main takeaway was the idea that platforms’ decisions regarding promoting and regulating certain content are
First Amendment-protected editorial choices.
Together, these cases suggest that restricting online speech simply based on age is inherently unconstitutional, but certain narrowly-tailored legislation in the interest of youth safety could be permissible.
Another argument put forth in opposition to the bill is the potentially disproportionate impact it could have on youth from vulnerable backgrounds. Many youth, especially those struggling with mental health, utilize social media as an outlet to create networks of like-minded peers. A statistic cited in the Chamber of Progress report stated that teenagers who often go online are 62% less likely to be hospitalized for self-harm. Barring these platforms to youth could result in exacerbated feelings of isolation or depression, especially when they lack any type of adequate support systems at home.
Other opponents simply think that this bill is the wrong approach, actually unnecessarily interfering with parent involvement instead of helping. Jason J. Deans, a government relations professional, argued in a recent NC Political News op-ed that this type of state-led intervention prevents parents from being the sole decision-makers when it comes to their children’s online activity. He wrote that this type of blanket restriction "disrespects the role of parents in raising their own children.”
Overall, this debate raises the question: Is it more important to collect children’s data to restrict their access to platforms where they are susceptible to harmful content, or to allow them to retain the right to express themselves and learn to navigate these applications independently? Given that this bill has a strong chance of passing the Senate and being signed into law by Governor Stein this year, only time will tell.