Senate Bill 262 would ban social media use for Alaskans under the age of sixteen and restrict the use of algorithmic content feeds for users under eighteen. As written, SB 262 suffers from significant constitutional and practical flaws, including: SB 262 is unconstitutional under the First Amendment, it would put Alaska residents’ privacy and data at risk, leaving them vulnerable to breaches and crime and the bill violates parental rights.
NetChoice Testimony in Opposition to Alaska SB 262
April 29, 2026
Alaska State Legislature
Senate Labor and Commerce Committee
Dear Chair Bjorkman, Vice Chair Merrick and Members of the Committee:
On behalf of NetChoice, a trade association working to make the Internet safe for free enterprise and free expression, we write in opposition to Senate Bill 262, which would ban social media use for Alaskans under the age of sixteen and restrict the use of algorithmic content feeds for users under eighteen. As written, SB 262 suffers from significant constitutional and practical flaws:
- SB 262 is unconstitutional under the First Amendment
- It would put Alaska residents’ privacy and data at risk, leaving them vulnerable to breaches and crime and
- The bill violates parental rights.
While intended to improve child mental health outcomes and protect child safety — goals which NetChoice and our members share — an unconstitutional law helps no one. Several other states have attempted to enact similar legislation, and numerous have been blocked in court. NetChoice has successfully challenged laws in Louisiana, Arkansas and Ohio, among others, on nearly identical grounds. We ask that you oppose SB 262 and use this opportunity to begin a broader conversation about how best to protect children online while preserving the constitutional rights of all Alaskans.
SB 262 Violates the First Amendment
The First Amendment expressly protects the rights of minors as well as adults, and the Supreme Court has consistently affirmed this principle. In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, the Court struck down California’s ban on minors accessing violent video games — even with a parental consent exception — finding that the government cannot condition a minor’s access to lawful content on parental approval or a blanket ban. SB 262 is no different. Social media platforms are forums for constitutionally protected speech and expression, and a categorical prohibition on account access for users under sixteen cannot survive First Amendment scrutiny.
While the Supreme Court ruled in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (2025) that age verification could be required for platforms hosting content already illegal for minors — specifically, pornography — that was a narrow holding tied to a specific category of illegal material. SB 262 casts a far wider net, restricting minors’ access to general-purpose social media platforms where the vast majority of content is constitutionally protected. Courts have consistently rejected such broad restrictions. Similar laws have been permanently enjoined in Ohio, Arkansas and Louisiana, and blocked in numerous other jurisdictions. NetChoice succeeded in obtaining a permanent injunction against Louisiana’s Act 456 in December 2025 — a law with nearly identical age-restriction and parental consent provisions to those found here. SB 262 would be destined for the same fate, at significant cost to Alaska taxpayers.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s decision in Moody v. NetChoice (2024) reinforces why SB 262’s restrictions on algorithmic content curation are independently unconstitutional. In that case, the Court recognized that platforms’ editorial and curation decisions — including the selection, ranking and organization of content — are themselves protected First Amendment expression. Section 45.50.650(e) of SB 262 does not merely restrict what minors can see; it compels platforms to abandon their own editorial judgment and deliver content in a government-mandated chronological format. That is compelled speech directed at the platforms themselves, and it cannot survive constitutional scrutiny regardless of the age of the intended audience.
Age Verification Requirements Create Serious Privacy and Security Risks
By requiring social media platforms to determine the age of all account holders and prohibit users under sixteen from maintaining accounts, SB 262 would effectively require platforms to collect, process and store sensitive personal information about Alaskans of all ages. Compliance would almost certainly require platforms to gather government-issued identification, biometric data or financial information from every user — not just minors — in order to verify age and enforce the ban.
Rather than shielding minors from online threats, this approach places vast amounts of personally identifiable information in one place, creating exactly the kind of target that data thieves, child predators and other bad actors actively seek. Alaska families deserve better than a law that purports to protect their children while quietly building a honeypot of their most sensitive data. This bill also has the potential to drive young people toward less regulated and more dangerous online spaces that fall entirely outside the reach of authorities — the opposite of its stated goal.
SB 262 Usurps Parental Rights
Despite framing itself as a child-safety measure, SB 262 in practice replaces family decision-making with a one-size-fits-all government mandate. Many Alaska parents have carefully determined that their teenagers can responsibly use social media with appropriate guidance. Others have taken the opposite approach. That is their right as parents. Regardless of the choice a family makes, parents — not the government — have the fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children.
SB 262 eliminates that choice for families who would permit their child under sixteen to use these platforms, substituting the Legislature’s judgment for their own. In order for a parent to allow their child to remain online, they would be forced to surrender their privacy and data security in the process. That is not parental empowerment — it is government overreach.
Again, we respectfully ask you to oppose SB 262. 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 all 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.