NetChoice strongly opposes Hawaii SB 2761, which would ban social media use for individuals under sixteen years of age. As introduced, SB 2761 suffers from significant constitutional flaws. It is unconstitutional under the First Amendment and would put Hawaii residents’ privacy and data at risk, leaving them vulnerable to breaches and crime. We share the sponsor’s goal to better protect minors from harmful content online, but an unconstitutional law helps no one.
NetChoice Testimony in Opposition to Hawaii SB 2761
Feb. 4, 2026
Hawaii State Legislature
Dear Chair Elefante, Vice-Chair Lamosao, and Members of the Committee of the Labor and Technology Committee:
NetChoice respectfully submits this testimony in strong opposition to Hawaii SB 2761, which would ban social media use for individuals under sixteen years of age. NetChoice is a trade association of leading internet businesses that promotes the value, convenience, and choice that internet business models provide to American consumers. Our mission is to make the internet safe for free enterprise and free expression. As introduced, SB 2761 suffers from significant constitutional flaws:
- SB 2761 is unconstitutional under the First Amendment and
- SB 2761 would put Hawaii residents’ privacy and data at risk, leaving them vulnerable to breaches and crime.
We share the sponsor’s goal to better protect minors from harmful content online, but an unconstitutional law helps no one. NetChoice members have taken issues of teen safety seriously and in recent years have rolled out numerous new features, settings, parental tools, and protections to better empower parents and assist in monitoring their children’s use of social media. We ask that you oppose SB 2761 and instead use this bill to jumpstart a larger conversation about how best to protect minors online by constitutionally sound legislation.
SB 2761 Violates the First Amendment
This legislation is facially unconstitutional. Social media platforms are forums for protected speech, and minors—including those under sixteen—have First Amendment rights that are well-established in Supreme Court precedent. In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, the Court affirmed that “minors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection,” and government efforts to restrict their access to constitutionally protected speech face strict scrutiny (Brown v. Entertainment Merchants’ Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786, 799 (2011) (invalidating California’s attempt to ban minors from accessing “violent” video games because violent video games are protected speech)).
A blanket ban on minors’ access to social media, with no consideration of content, context, or parental involvement, cannot survive constitutional review. The government cannot categorically prohibit an entire class of citizens from accessing platforms that facilitate speech, association, and access to information simply because of their age. This is true even when the stated purpose is protecting children—indeed, Brown involved exactly such a justification for restricting minors’ access to violent video games, and the Court rejected it.
The bill’s reliance on Australia’s 2024 law as precedent is fundamentally flawed. Australia does not have a First Amendment or equivalent constitutional protection for freedom of speech. What may be legally permissible under Australia’s constitutional framework bears no relevance to what is constitutionally permissible in the United States. American courts have consistently struck down content-based restrictions and access limitations that would be unthinkable in countries without our robust speech protections. The legislature cannot simply import a foreign model without regard to our nation’s foundational commitment to free expression.
The Bill Violates Parental Rights
This legislation represents an unprecedented intrusion into parental authority. Parents—not the government—have the fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children.
By implementing an absolute ban with no exception for parental consent, this bill removes all parental discretion. Parents who believe their children would benefit from supervised social media use—whether for educational purposes, maintaining family connections, participating in support communities, or developing digital literacy skills—are prohibited from making that choice. A parent cannot authorize their fifteen-year-old to maintain contact with distant relatives, participate in educational groups, or engage with age-appropriate content even under close supervision.
The legislature’s judgment cannot substitute for that of individual parents who understand their own children’s maturity, needs, and circumstances. Many families thoughtfully incorporate social media into their children’s lives with appropriate supervision and boundaries. This bill treats all families as incapable of making these decisions and all minors as uniformly unable to benefit from these platforms—a one-size-fits-all approach that disrespects parental rights and family autonomy.
Age Verification Requirements Create Serious Privacy and Security Risks
While the bill requires platforms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent minors from accessing services, effective enforcement would necessarily require invasive age verification systems that threaten the privacy of all users—not just minors. To verify that users are over sixteen, platforms would need to collect sensitive personal information such as government-issued IDs, biometric data, or credit card information from every user, including adults.
This creates a massive honeypot of sensitive personal data vulnerable to breaches, hacking, and misuse. It also enables unprecedented surveillance and tracking of individuals’ online activities. Users who value their privacy—including victims of domestic violence, political dissidents, or simply privacy-conscious individuals—would be forced to choose between anonymity and access to speech platforms.
Moreover, the reference to Australia’s law is misleading. Australia’s implementation has been widely criticized for its technical difficulties, privacy invasions, and potential to push young people toward less regulated and potentially more dangerous online spaces. Nearly five million accounts deleted represents not a success story but evidence of the law’s broad sweep affecting countless legitimate users.
An Approach that Actually Works
Rather than enact clearly unconstitutional laws banning the free speech of Hawaii residents, the state would be better served enacting laws that help the citizens and are legal. NetChoice is working with lawmakers from across the country to achieve such ends.
Requiring Digital Education in Schools
Empowering students with digital literacy skills and knowledge about online safety through curriculum developed by education experts represents a constitutional and effective approach. Such requirements effectively address crucial issues facing young people online. This approach will not only reach children where they are, but will help arm them to become better digital citizens.
Updating Child Abuse Laws for AI
Today, child abusers are able to use artificial intelligence to create images and escape justice under existing Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) laws. This is because existing CSAM laws require real images of the abuse, rather than AI-generated ones. NetChoice is working with lawmakers to create laws that fill the gaps in existing CSAM laws to protect children from such abuses.
Empowering law enforcement to arrest child abusers
Today less than 1% of all reports of child abuse are even investigated. That means that 99% of reports of child abuse go unheard. This is because law enforcement doesn’t have the resources it needs to investigate and prosecute child abusers. NetChoice supports giving law enforcement the resources it needs to put child abusers behind bars.
Again, we respectfully ask you to oppose SB 2761. 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 the committee with our thoughts on this important matter (The views of NetChoice expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of NetChoice members).
Sincerely,
Amy Bos
Vice President of Government Affairs, NetChoice
NetChoice is a trade association that works to protect free expression and promote free enterprise online.