House Kids' Safety Deal Could Derail AI Legislation
The House has struck a bipartisan deal on children's online safety that omits a crucial "duty of care" provision, drawing a sharp line against the Senate's approach and threatening to stall broader AI legislation before the session ends. By declining to hold Big Tech accountable for platform design, the House has set up a clash over how best to protect children in the digital age.
Why the House rejected a "duty of care" for Big Tech
On Monday, House Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) and ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) released the text of the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act. Unlike the Senate's Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), spearheaded by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), the House bill does not require online platforms to design their products with children's safety as a foundational principle. This concept, known as a "duty of care," is a nonstarter for the House, where members fear it could encourage platforms to censor controversial content to avoid liability. These censorship concerns previously led Speaker Mike Johnson to reject a last-ditch effort by kids' safety advocates to bring KOSA to the floor during the last Congress.
Blackburn didn't mince words. "Omitting a duty of care maintains the status quo of tech companies putting profit before the safety of our children," she said in a statement. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), the Senate bill's Democratic co-sponsor, was even more blunt, calling the House's proposal a "toothless & tepid capitulation" and "a betrayal of families suffering from Big Tech's greed" in a post on X.
The preemption problem: Silicon Valley's AI power grab
The House bill also omits language that would preempt state artificial intelligence laws, a major priority for Silicon Valley. Senate Republicans, including Commerce Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas), are expected to push for such preemption. Cruz plans to advance a kids' safety package that includes KOSA, a ban on targeted advertising using minors' personal data, a ban on children under 13 using social media, and greater oversight for children interacting with AI chatbots. A separate House draft by Reps. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) and Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) sought to set sweeping federal AI policy and override state laws, but it has gotten a tepid reception from the White House and GOP leaders.
This sets up a clash over whether federal AI standards should come at the expense of state-level protections. The House deliberately kept their safety bill separate from the preemption debate, according to a person familiar with the negotiations. The House approach would establish minimum federal standards while allowing states to enact stronger safeguards, a position that addresses Democratic concerns about an earlier version of the bill that limited states' ability to protect kids.
Adam Kovacevich, a former Google executive and CEO of the tech industry group Chamber of Progress, warned that the flurry of bills risks overreach. "This has a whiff of trying to do too many things," he told POLITICO. "It assumes that industry is so eager for federal AI standards that they would accept any trade off, and I don't think that's true."
What's actually in the House's KIDS Act?
Despite the omission of the duty of care, the House bill includes several significant measures. It would restrict minors' use of disappearing messages, require AI chatbots to disclose that they are not human, and mandate age verification technology for platforms hosting pornographic material. Guthrie expressed optimism, saying, "I am hopeful that this consensus legislation can soon be considered by the full House." The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Notably, the House deal has buy-in from Speaker Johnson, according to a person with direct knowledge of the legislation. This gives the House version real momentum, even if the Senate rejects it.
Can Congress pass any kids' safety legislation this year?
The divisions between the House and Senate may be too stark to overcome in the few short weeks remaining on the legislative calendar, according to four lobbyists, an AI safety advocate, and two Hill staffers from both parties. The House has effectively set the ceiling for what can pass its chamber, as Joseph Hoefer, principal and chief AI officer at Monument Advocacy, explained: "By planting a flag on a narrower version, particularly on duty of care, the House is effectively setting the ceiling for what can clear the floor."
Still, advocates find a silver lining. The sheer volume of bills keeps the spotlight on the issue. Jon Schweppe, a senior adviser at the conservative American Principles Project who attended a White House meeting with kids' safety groups, noted that "every couple days the odds of an actual kid safety package passing go up." He acknowledged that preemption legislation faces an uphill battle but believes House Democrats' support could influence the Senate's next moves.
What is the "duty of care" in online safety legislation?
A "duty of care" would legally require online platforms to design their products and features with children's safety as a foundational principle. The Senate bill includes this provision, but the House bill omits it over concerns about potential censorship.
Why does Silicon Valley want to preempt state AI laws?
Tech companies argue that a patchwork of state-by-state AI regulations creates confusion and stifles innovation. They want a single, federal standard to govern AI development and deployment, even if it means weaker protections than some states might enact on their own.
What happens next for kids' online safety legislation?
The House and Senate must reconcile their differing approaches, a challenging task given the limited time left on the legislative calendar. The Senate is likely to reject the House's narrower bill, while the House is unlikely to accept the Senate's broader duty of care requirement.