HB 542 builds a digital ID mandate and surveillance structure into Idaho law — one that would compel platforms to continuously track, estimate and verify the identities of all users, including minors. The bill creates serious privacy risks by mandating large-scale collection of sensitive identifying data, and violates the First Amendment by restricting access to and dissemination of protected speech.
NetChoice Veto Request to Governor Little on Idaho HB542, Stop Harms from Addictive Social Media Act
March 25, 2026
The Honorable Brad Little
Governor of Idaho
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0034
Dear Governor Little:
I write on behalf of NetChoice, a trade association dedicated to making the internet safe for free enterprise and free expression, to respectfully urge you to veto House Bill 542. At its core, HB 542 builds a digital ID mandate and surveillance structure into Idaho law — one that would compel platforms to continuously track, estimate and verify the identities of all users, including minors. Specifically, we oppose HB 542 as it:
- Fails to protect a single citizen from harm
- Puts minors’ sensitive data at risk
- Violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
We share the legislature’s genuine concern for the safety of Idaho’s minors online. 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 HB542 and instead use this bill as a way to jumpstart a larger conversation about how best to protect minors online and consider alternatives that do not raise constitutional issues.
HB542 Puts Minors’ Sensitive Data at Risk
This bill was ostensibly introduced to protect children but instead it puts children’s sensitive data at greater privacy and security risks. Section 48-2103 imposes a complex and unprecedented age estimation mandate on covered platforms. Beginning within fourteen days of an account holder reaching the “first trigger date” (25 cumulative hours of use in six months), platforms must estimate whether the account holder is 16 or older, with 80% confidence. By the “second trigger date” (50 hours), that threshold rises to 90%. Platforms must then continually update their estimates every 100 hours of use thereafter. This creates strong incentives for platforms to collect sensitive, identifying information about all Idaho users—including minors.
Additionally, the bill’s verifiable parental consent requirement will necessitate collection of sensitive personal information from both minors and their parents. Documents which conclusively establish users’ ages and parental relationships are likely to be government-issued identification. Large-scale mandatory collection of highly sensitive government identification data—from both children and adults—dramatically increases the risks that this data will be captured, breached and misused by bad actors.
Requiring identity authentication of all Idaho users adds several unconstitutional barriers to sharing and accessing First Amendment-protected online speech.
HB542 Violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution – At Least Twice Over
This bill presents at least two independent First Amendment violations. First, it infringes on the rights of users to receive protected expression without first having their age “estimated” by the platform and, if determined to be a minor, securing parental consent. Second, it infringes on the rights of platforms to disseminate their own “distinctive expressive offering” to users without engaging in invasive age estimation and verification processes.
Age Estimation, Verification and Parental Consent Requirements Are Unconstitutional
Restrictions on the access to and enjoyment of speech are rarely permitted. Indeed, restrictions are permitted only for certain categories of speech, and the Court has been careful to articulate such categories as obscenity, incitement, true threats and fighting words. But the government cannot create new categories of unprotected speech to solve some perceived social harm (Brown, 564 U.S. at 792). And, as Packingham recognized, social media is home to troves of protected, valuable speech (582 U.S. at 105).
When the government has attempted to restrict access to speech through requirements for speakers to “determine” or “verify” the age of audience members, the Supreme Court routinely struck them down. Such restrictions impermissibly chill speech by dissuading otherwise willing speakers and listeners from participating. The government may not impose barriers as a precondition to speak or receive the speech of others (See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 855-857 (1997); Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004)). Similarly, the Supreme Court also invalidated parental consent requirements to access lawful speech (Brown, 564 U.S. 786 (2011)).
While HB542 does not purport to prevent access to social media websites outright, it does restrict access to the website’s “distinctive expressive offering” (Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. at 738). That offering is protected expression, and the government may not prevent access to that offering any more than it could dictate how the New York Times or Wall Street Journal arrange articles in their newspapers.
Restrictions on Dissemination of Lawful Speech are Unconstitutional
Distinct from the First Amendment injury HB542 inflicts on the viewers, readers and users of social media websites, the law inflicts a separate injury on websites because it prevents them from freely offering their own “distinctive expressive offering.”
The bill would make it unlawful for social media websites to offer content that is “recommended, selected, or prioritized” to users without either determining the user is an adult or obtaining parental consent for minors. This restriction prevents the exercise of editorial discretion. The judgment about what content to display “rest[s] on a set of beliefs about which messages are appropriate” to prioritize and display to users is expressive. And the government does not have the authority to alter those decisions merely because it believes it would make better choices (Id. at 738).
The Supreme Court’s decision last term in NetChoice emphatically held that the personalized feeds available on social media websites like Facebook and YouTube are protected expression under the First Amendment. Because HB542 would prevent the exercise of editorial discretion by prohibiting the use of these personalized feeds, it is unconstitutional.
HB542’s Private Right of Action Invites Costly, Abusive Litigation
Beyond its constitutional and privacy deficiencies, HB542 compounds the harm by creating a private right of action that exposes platforms to potentially unlimited litigation from any Idaho resident. This provision invites opportunistic lawsuits untethered from any demonstrated harm, driving up costs that will ultimately be borne by consumers and small businesses that rely on these platforms. Private rights of action in the context of vague, technically ambiguous mandates—like HB542’s novel age estimation requirements—are especially problematic, as courts and juries will be asked to adjudicate complex algorithmic and engineering questions without clear legislative standards to guide them. Rather than incentivizing better outcomes for children, this litigation mechanism will incentivize platforms to over-collect user data to defend against lawsuits, further undermining the very privacy protections the bill claims to advance. The Legislature should reject this provision and rely instead on robust enforcement by the Attorney General, who can bring targeted, consistent and expert-informed actions when genuine violations occur.
NetChoice and its members are committed to making the internet safer for children. We have supported parental control tools, digital literacy education and industry-led initiatives to protect young users from harmful content. We recognize that more can and should be done, and we welcome the Legislature’s engagement on this issue. However, effective child online safety policy must be narrowly tailored, technically feasible and constitutionally sound. Because HB542 falls short on all of these accounts, we respectfully ask you to veto the legislation.
Sincerely,
Amy Bos
Vice President of Government Affairs
NetChoice
NetChoice is a trade association that works to make the internet safe for free enterprise and free expression.