Texas House Bill 186 could block minors from using social media. See where the bill stands
Social media companies could face strict penalties from Texas lawmakers if House Bill 186 becomes law.
On Tuesday, the House voted 125-20 in favor of HB 186. The bill now goes to the Senate.
Here is what you need to know about HB 186.
HB 186 proposes that tech companies, like Meta, X and Snapchat, verify users' ages when they create social media accounts. Introduced by Rep. Jared Patterson, R-Frisco, the bill is now in the stage where it will be finalized for Senate review.
Patterson said social media has had harmful effects on children.
'Social media companies don't care about what content they're feeding you and your children,' Patterson said. 'Rather, they want you hooked on their content.'
If HB186 is enacted, social media companies will be required to remove a child's account if requested by a parent or guardian, according to the bill.
The social media company must delete the account within 10 days of receiving the request.
Failure to verify user age, permitting underage children to access the platform, misusing personal data, or neglecting to delete accounts could result in penalties from the Texas attorney general's Consumer Protection Division.
The bill does not specify exact penalties. Instead, it defers to existing statutes, which grant the attorney general the authority to take action, including imposing financial penalties.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Proposed Texas bill will prevent minors from using social media
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
Who will be Trump's new Silicon Valley bestie?
Mark Zuckerberg, Meta Platforms founder and CEO Zuckerberg was something of a MAGA stan earlier this year. Meta, his company, dropped $1 million on Trump's inauguration, and Zuck even co-hosted a black-tie soirée that night to honor the second-time president. Now, with Meta in the throes of a federal antitrust lawsuit, Zuckerberg may not be on Trump's good side. But the Meta CEO could be playing the long game here: He snapped up a $23 million, 15,000 square-foot DC mega mansion, establishing more of a presence in the capital. Zuck has also been on a bit of a rebrand journey, from a hoodie-wearing founder to a gold chain-wearing CEO with unapologetic swagger. Part of this transformation has included podcast appearances, like an episode with Trump-endorsing Joe Rogan in which Zuck talked about his "masculine energy" and his proclivity for bowhunting. Sam Altman, OpenAI cofounder and CEO Altman has also been circling the throne. First came Stargate: the $100 billion AI infrastructure plan between OpenAI, Oracle, and SoftBank, announced the day after Trump's inauguration. Then, in May, the OpenAI CEO joined Trump on a trip to Saudi Arabia while Altman was working on a massive deal to build one of the world's largest AI data centers in Abu Dhabi. This reportedly rattled Musk enough to tag along at the last minute, according to the Wall Street Journal. OpenAI was ultimately selected for the deal, which Musk allegedly attempted to derail, the Wall Street Journal reported. Jeff Bezos, Amazon founder and executive chairman, Washington Post owner, and Blue Origin founder Back in 2015, Bezos wanted to launch Trump into orbit after the at-the-time presidential candidate fired shots at Bezos on what was Twitter, now X, calling the Washington Post, which Bezos owns, a "tax shelter," Bezos responded that he'd use Blue Origin, a space company Bezos founded, to "#sendDonaldtospace." Times have certainly changed. In January, Bezos said he is "very optimistic" about the administration's space agenda. Behind the scenes, he has reportedly given Trump political advice, allegedly as early as the summer of 2024, according to Axios. There was a brief flare-up in April, though, after Amazon reportedly considered listing Trump's tariffs next to products' prices on the site, according to Punchbowl News. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the plan a "hostile and political action." The idea, which was never implemented, was scrapped, and an Amazon spokesperson insisted it was only ever meant for its low-cost Haul store. If Trump does cancel Musk's SpaceX government contracts as he threatened to do, Bezos' Blue Origin, and rival to SpaceX, could stand to benefit. Blue Origin already has a $3 billion contract with NASA. Jensen Huang, Nvidia cofounder and CEO While Huang was notably missing from Trump's second inauguration in January, he did attend the Middle East trip in May. Nvidia is partnering with Oracle, SoftBank, and G42 on the OpenAI data center plans in the UAE. But Nvidia hasn't gotten off too easy: In April, Trump banned the chip maker from selling its most advanced chips, the H20, to China, a move that Nvidia says cost it $5.5 billion and reportedly prompted the company to modify the chip for China to circumvent US export controls. Sundar Pichai, Google CEO In April, a federal judge ruled that Google holds an illegal monopoly in some advertising technology markets. This is one of two major legal blows to Google in the past year: Back in August 2024, a federal judge ruled that Google violated antitrust law with its online search. If Google has to sell Chrome, Barclays told clients on Monday, Alphabet stock could fall 25%. This flurry of litigation — and potential divestment of the Chrome business — puts Pichai between a rock and a hard place. While the CEO was spotted with the rest of the technorati at Trump's inauguration, it's hard to say how he might cozy up to Trump, and whether friendly relations would do anything to remedy these rulings.
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Trump's Patience With Putin Leaves Senate Sanctions Push on Hold
President Donald Trump's suggestion that he may let Russia and Ukraine keep fighting has left US lawmakers in an awkward spot over their plan to force a ceasefire with 'bone-crushing' sanctions against Moscow. The Senate bill has more than 80 co-sponsors, an all-but-unheard-of level of bipartisan support. Yet although that kind of veto-proof backing is enough for the Senate to press ahead without White House backing, supporters show no sign they're ready to challenge the president.
3 hours ago
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.'
