Center for Democracy & Technology urges Senators to rethink approach to children’s online safety
On 4 August 2026 the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) sent a letter to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, addressed to Chairman Ted Cruz, ranking member Maria Cantwell and other committee members, ahead of the committee’s markup on 5 August 2026.
The letter commended the committee for focusing on protecting children online and stated that CDT has advocated for Congress to adopt strong privacy protections and to protect free expression online for adults and children alike. CDT argued that comprehensive consumer‑privacy legislation that ‘realigns consumer expectations and incentives for online business models’ is the best path forward to protecting children and everyone online. It added that, in the absence of such protections, all stakeholders – families, companies, civil society, academics, researchers, technologists and policy makers – must work together to ensure that young people can grow and learn to use digital technologies in a safe and age‑appropriate fashion.
CDT identified three bills before the committee that it said fall short of their intended goals and raise significant constitutional concerns.
Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) – CDT said the bill ‘raises constitutional concerns’, describing the duty‑of‑care provision as ‘likely unconstitutional’. It said the bill’s incentive for age verification ‘endangers privacy and free expression for everyone’ and warned that ‘kids in the LGBTQ community, disability community, and other marginalised groups will be disproportionately harmed by the censorship the bill would encourage’. CDT added that ‘many parents have made it clear they are concerned’.
Children’s Health, Advancement, Trust, Boundaries, and Oversight in Technology Act (the ‘CHATBOT’ Act) – CDT described the bill as ‘a less restrictive option than the GUARD Act’ but said it ‘raises constitutional concerns by incentivising age verification through a constructive knowledge standard, without sufficient safeguards to protect privacy and the ability to access these systems free from undue burdens on constitutional rights’. The letter noted that the bill would require suspension and termination of existing accounts the provider ‘knows’ belong to non‑compliant minors, but provides no mechanism for misidentified users to contest that determination. It said the bill would require ‘parent‑managed accounts’ for children under 13, potentially ‘requiring providers to retain records of children’s most private conversations’, and would limit teens aged 13‑17 to creating accounts only with verifiable parental consent, with ‘the most restrictive default settings’ applying where parents decline to create an optional family account.
Shielding Children’s Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net Act (the ‘SCREEN’ Act) – CDT said the legislation is ‘overly broad’, sweeping in platforms such as X and Reddit, and would require those platforms to ‘exclude minors altogether’. The organisation argued that, although the Supreme Court’s decision in FSC v Paxton permits age assurance for adult content, bills must be crafted ‘so as not to censor content children have a constitutional right to access’. CDT added that the SCREEN Act ‘does not require sufficient safeguards for the implementation of the age‑verification processes it mandates, risking everyone’s privacy and access to constitutionally protected expression’.
The letter expressed support for S. 4199, the Youth AI Privacy Act, describing it as ‘a more appropriate approach’. CDT said the bill would create ‘important safeguards for the use of minors’ data by generative AI services’, including restrictions on using minors’ data to train AI systems or to profile them, restrictions on advertising to minors and broader data‑minimisation measures. CDT indicated it looks forward to working with the committee to ensure the bill protects minors’ privacy and free‑expression rights, particularly by ‘further calibrating the knowledge standard, ensuring it can withstand judicial review, and that minors’ rights to seek information via covered systems are fully protected’.
The correspondence does not include a response from the Senate Committee or its members.
The letter is relevant to digital governance because it addresses pending US legislative proposals on age‑verification mechanisms, data protection for children and the balance between privacy, free expression and constitutional rights in the online environment.
