
How will big tech comply with Utah's first-in-the-nation child protection laws?
Utah reasserted its place at the tip of the spear in the battle against Big Tech this legislative session with a pair of pioneering bills aimed at protecting parental consent and user data.
Gov. Spencer Cox signed the state's first-in-the-nation App Store Accountability Act into law on Wednesday and praised the state's similarly unprecedented Data Sharing Amendments as a game changer.
Critics of the proposals predict they will end up in the same place as Utah's earlier efforts in 2023 and 2024 to mandate social media safety features for minors which courts have paused out of constitutional concerns.
Advocates argue that the Beehive State's latest attempt to rein in software giants is lawsuit-proof because of its focus on contracts instead of content. The new laws, they say, will give Utahns important tools to prevent exploitation at the hands of companies that profit from private information and unhealthy screen time.
SB142, App Store Accountability Act, mirrors legislation introduced by Utah Sen. Mike Lee at the federal level that was proposed by a coalition of child protection groups led by Utahn Melissa McKay.
The new law will require app stores to verify whether a user is an adult, using the same information required to set up an app store account. Minor accounts must be affiliated with a parent account and will be placed in one of three age categories: child (under 13), younger teenager (13-16) or older teenager (16-18).
App stores will be required to obtain verifiable parental consent if a minor attempts to download an app or make an in-app purchase. The consent process must inform parents of the app's age rating and a description of how the app will use and protect their child's information.
'This was kind of a radical new concept,' McKay said in an interview with the Deseret News. 'It took us a long time to realize it doesn't matter what we do as a coalition ... these companies aren't fixing themselves.'
Under the new law, app developers will be required to verify a user's age category and parental consent status with app stores once a year or whenever the app's terms of use agreement is updated.
The law also creates a new right of action for parents of harmed minors to sue app stores or developers if they violate these provisions by enforcing contracts against minors without parental consent, by misrepresenting the app when asking for consent or by sharing personal age verification data inappropriately.
'While we need to embrace technology as part of our future and as something important in our society, we also need to protect children,' said Aimee Winder Newton, director of Utah's Office of Families, in an interview with the Deseret News. 'And that's what's so great about Utah, is we recognize that protecting children is No. 1.'
During the 2025 legislative session, the bill received the support of app developers, like Meta, Snap Inc., and X, who were happy to see the responsibility for verifying identity moved to one central location and called for other states to implement Utah's solution.
'Parents want a one-stop-shop to oversee and approve the many apps their teens want to download,' the three companies said in a joint statement. 'This approach spares users from repeatedly submitting personal information to countless individual apps and online services.'
But the country's main app store companies, Apple and Google, were strongly against the bill and put forward their own proposals that would have made age verification between stores and developers optional.
In a blog post following the bill's passage, Google's public policy director, Kareem Ghanem, said the bill introduced new privacy risks for minors by informing every developer of users' ages without parents' permission.
Meanwhile, Apple also suggested that Utah's law forced app stores to unnecessarily collect and distribute 'sensitive personally identifying information.'
Caden Rosenbaum, a senior policy analyst at the Utah-based Libertas Institute, told the Deseret News that the bill simply recodified current contract law while potentially compromising internet anonymity and expanding government interference in the private sector and in the home.
'In an ideal world, the government would not be in the business of parenting. I think that is the fundamental disagreement here,' Rosenbaum said. 'There are relevant issues that we need to discuss and we shouldn't be just throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks when it comes to the way that we do it.'
Rosenbaum questioned the bill's ability to survive constitutional scrutiny.
But the sponsor of the legislation, state Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, said he doesn't expect the law to receive the same fate as the state's previous attempts to regulate minors' experience on social media.
Unlike those policies, SB142 is difficult to attack on First Amendment grounds, Weiler said. But the bill was given a delayed implementation date of May 6, 2026, to give the social media companies 'time to react.'
Several other states, including Texas, are likely to pass legislation based on Utah's this year and could receive legal challenges first because of earlier implementation dates.
On the final night of the legislative session, Cox praised Weiler's bill while also giving recognition to HB418, sponsored by Rep. Doug Fiefia, R-Herriman, which he has yet to sign.
'This was a top priority of our administration,' Cox said. 'I can't underscore how big this is; I don't think people really understand what this could do if we could get it done in other states and as a nation.'
HB418, Data Sharing Amendments, reaffirms an individual's right to control the data social media companies collect on them by requiring companies to provide or delete this data upon request.
It will also mandate that social media companies remove barriers that prevent users from sharing their own data, like followers, posts and messages, from one platform to another to prevent companies from guarding user data.
Once signed, the law will require social media companies to develop 'accessible, prominent, and persistent' methods for getting consent to share personal data with any third-party. The Division of Consumer Protection will be empowered to fine bad actors up to $2,500 for each violation or to bring a legal motion to enforce the law.
'This bill isn't about punishing businesses, but it does challenge exploitative business models that rely on unchecked data harvesting,' Fiefia told the Deseret News. 'There are still plenty of sustainable, responsible ways to innovate and succeed without compromising individual rights.'
For countless Utah parents, legislative efforts to hold social media accountable are 'very encouraging,' according to Jenna Baker, a Heber City resident studying for a masters in public health.
As the mother of four children between 7 and 16, Baker said watching the impact of social media on the country's youngest and most vulnerable has been 'heart-wrenching.'
'It's so disheartening because I wonder how many tragedies could have been avoided if we would have had this conversation 15 years prior,' Baker said.
Baker said she hopes the new laws are just the beginning for public policy that seeks to help parents manage a problem that looks much more like a public health crisis than a moral panic over new technology.
While the responsibility for a child's experience on a phone ultimately comes down to the parent, Baker said that additional tools to level the playing field with huge corporations are long overdue.
'It's now like, how do we pick up the pieces and move forward so that our youth have a brighter and more healthy future?' Baker said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Robinhood, AppLovin Locked Out of S&P 500 Yet Again
Consider it the 'Hot or Not' list of the business world. And who's not hot? Robinhood and AppLovin, for starters. At least, not quite hot enough. Shares of both companies are slipping this week after each failed to break into the S&P 500, disappointing eager investors who thought they looked like strong candidates to get tapped for the big leagues during the index's quarterly adjustments. Alas, they remain on the outside looking in. READ ALSO: Meta's Scoping Out a Superintelligence Lab and Not Lovin' It: McDonald's Suffers Third Downgrade in as Many Trading Days Conventional wisdom says being on the S&P 500 isn't just a status symbol. It's one that is supposed to come with plenty of benefits. Namely: a steady rise in passive inflows, as index funds and ETFs tracking it buy up stock. It's a major reason why both Robinhood and AppLovin saw positive share price movement through May as speculation swirled that they might be called up to the A-Team. For context: Robinhood is still up 26% in the past month, and AppLovin almost 11%, though they have slipped 3% and 8%, respectively, since the index revealed on Friday it'd be adding no new companies in its latest round of quarterly rebalancing. That means short-term investors looking for a quick fix by betting that the companies would score S&P 500 membership — and post-membership gains — got singed by the bad news. On the other hand, research shows that scoring that shiny new credential may not mean much in the long run anyhow, despite what conventional wisdom might have you believe: In a study published last year, researchers at McKinsey analyzed hundreds of companies that were added or removed from the S&P 500 and found that company's stock prices ultimately returned to their 'intrinsic value' within two months of the inclusion or removal, writing 'shareholder returns drive index inclusion or exclusion, not the other way around.' In fact, that temporary bump may be getting smaller and smaller. In a study titled 'The Disappearing Index Effect' published last year, a pair of Harvard Business School researchers found 'the abnormal return associated with a stock being added to the S&P 500 has fallen from an average of 7.4% in the 1990s to less than 1% over the past decade.' Door Policy: To get an S&P 500 nod, companies have to meet several criteria, including having a market cap of $20.5 billion or higher and having a positive sum of GAAP net income over the four most recent consecutive quarters. Robinhood and AppLovin check those boxes, so why the rejection? One theory recently floated by Barron's is that they've both been more volatile than the broader market — though that didn't prevent the similarly volatile CoinBase from getting accepted in May. In other words: Earning a spot on the premier index is sort of like trying to enter Berghain, the popular all-night dance club in Berlin with an infamously arbitrary door policy. This post first appeared on The Daily Upside. To receive delivering razor sharp analysis and perspective on all things finance, economics, and markets, subscribe to our free The Daily Upside newsletter. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Not Lovin' It: McDonald's Suffers Third Downgrade in as Many Trading Days
Could GLP-1 weight loss drugs and changing economic winds really take a bite out of the almighty Big Mac? Analyst after analyst after analyst seems to think so, as Redburn Atlantic on Tuesday became the third firm in as many trading days to downgrade McDonald's stock, often heralded as recession-proof. READ ALSO: Meta's Scoping Out a Superintelligence Lab and Robinhood, AppLovin Locked Out of S&P 500 Yet Again For years, McDonald's has been like the Dennis Rodman of the market. No, not for the ear piercings or the wild publicity antics or the Van Damme action movie: for being possibly the best defensive stock in the business. Shares in the fast food company outperformed the market in the 12 months leading up to all five recessions in the past 40 years and in the majority of recessionary periods that followed. With 41,000 locations, its massive scale allows it to set competitive prices, and 90% of its locations are franchises, meaning it obtained that scale with minimal capital investment. That has allowed McDonald's to focus on its chief proposition to customers: value. The sudden spate of downgrades, however, has called into question whether both behavioral and financial realities could erode the defensive prowess of the Golden Arches by rendering that proposition insufficient on its own: First under threat is McDonald's value proposition to consumers worried about the economy. McDonald's has seen same-store sales drop in the US for two straight quarters, with a 3.6% dip in the latest period and executives flagging even more concerning 10% drop-offs in traffic from lower- and middle-income consumers in the same period. On top of that, Redburn Atlantic analysts argued as they double-downgraded McDonald's from 'buy' to 'sell' on Tuesday, there are 'new behavioral challenges': the proliferation of glucagon-like peptide-1 drugs such as Ozempic, they said, could have a 'cumulative' impact on the chain's business, noting 'a 1% drag today could easily build to 10% or more over time.' There's also, according to Morgan Stanley analysts, a threat to McDonald's value proposition to investors: They pointed out on Monday upon their downgrade of the stock that the fast food chain is trading at nearly 25 times this year's earnings estimates. Compare that with Burger King-owner Restaurant Brands, Wendy's and Jack in the Box, which trade at 19, 12, and 4 times earnings estimates, respectively. An ongoing 'value war' among these and other chains, they noted, also means McDonald's 'pricing power has eroded,' reducing its leverage against its bargain-priced competitors. What Others Are Saying: Loop Capital, which downgraded McDonald's on Friday, cited negative feedback about the company's new chicken strips. Other words on the street might not bode well for business either. In April, Pepsico CEO Ramon Laguarta said GLP-1 consumers were 'keeping our brands in their repertoire, probably in a smaller portion,' hinting that food brands might have to cope with less consumptive consumers. Campbell's CEO Mick Beekhuizen said earlier this month that the budget-friendly canned goods company is observing people eating at home the most since the start of the pandemic in 2020. McDonald's shares fell 1.4% on Tuesday, paring this year's gains to 2.7%. Still, if you don't believe in the Cramer curse, CNBC clairvoyant Jim Cramer says the analysts betting against the Golden Arches are wrong. This post first appeared on The Daily Upside. To receive delivering razor sharp analysis and perspective on all things finance, economics, and markets, subscribe to our free The Daily Upside newsletter. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Does This News Make Meta Platforms Stock a Buy?
Meta Platforms is taking steps to improve its advertising process with AI. It could make an already highly profitable business even more so. There are other reasons to buy the stock. 10 stocks we like better than Meta Platforms › Several years ago, Facebook parent Meta Platforms (NASDAQ: META) changed its name, partly to reflect its newfound focus on its metaverse ambitions. Although the company is still working on that project, its initiatives in artificial intelligence (AI) garnered more headlines recently. Meta is looking to transform its business through AI, and recent news suggests it may take a significant step in that direction by the end of 2026. Let's examine these developments and determine whether they make Meta Platforms stock a buy. Meta Platforms makes most of its money from advertising to its massive user base. As of the end of the first quarter, Meta boasted 3.43 billion daily active users across its websites and apps, which include Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, and WhatsApp. However, Meta's ad business could become even better if it could provide more value to advertisers by improving their ad creation and launch processes. It already started to do that with the use of AI-powered tools -- for instance, helping advertisers define their target audience using AI. While businesses typically need to conduct research to figure that out, AI is making the job faster, easier, and cheaper. However, Meta is looking to take the next steps. According to a report from The Wall Street Journal, it aims to automate the process with AI from start to finish. Businesses will be able to use the technology at every step of the way -- to create images, tweak them, generate appropriate text, define the target audience, and more. Meta Platforms aims to complete this by the end of next year. What does this mean for investors? If successful, Meta Platforms' new AI tools for ads could reduce advertising expenses for companies while they achieve similar (or perhaps even better) results. If that's the case, demand for Meta's AI-powered tools to post ads across its websites and apps would increase significantly, leading to even more impressive sales. To be clear, Meta's ad business would be a key growth driver anyway. The digital ad market is still growing, and the tech leader's deep ecosystem of users makes it a valuable target for business clients. However, these new initiatives would further enhance this already highly profitable offering. Meanwhile, Meta is also improving engagement thanks to AI. Its algorithms have helped increase the amount of time users spend on Facebook and Instagram, so the company is working on both sides of the commerce equation with AI. These efforts should pay off in the long run, especially considering it has other potential growth drivers. It has been ramping up commercial messaging on WhatsApp, as well as working on the metaverse. Now, Meta Platforms isn't without risk. U.S.-China trade tensions could impact its financial results. During the first quarter, it received less advertising revenue from Asia-based retailers after the Trump administration ended a loophole that allowed some imports from China to enter the U.S. tax-free. Still, despite this headwind, Meta Platforms' first-quarter results were excellent. Revenue increased by 16% year over year to $42.3 billion, while net earnings per share came in at $6.43, 37% higher than the year-ago period. There might be more uncertainty if the trade wars continue, but Meta Platforms is showing that it can perform reasonably well despite that. Some might also point to the company's valuation as a reason to avoid the stock. Meta's forward price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio is 27.4 as of this writing, much higher than the average of 19.1 for the communication services industry. But given the Facebook parent's excellent results and strong prospects, it seems worth a premium. In my view, Meta Platforms will more than justify its relatively steep valuation in five years or more, which still makes it a stock worth owning for a long time. Before you buy stock in Meta Platforms, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Meta Platforms wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $660,341!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $874,192!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 999% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 173% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 Randi Zuckerberg, a former director of market development and spokeswoman for Facebook and sister to Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Prosper Junior Bakiny has positions in Meta Platforms. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Meta Platforms. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Does This News Make Meta Platforms Stock a Buy? was originally published by The Motley Fool Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data