Latest news with #ConnecticutHouse
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Algorithmic Outrage Meets Constitutional Law
Lawmakers aren't wrong to worry about kids and social media — they're just dead wrong about how to fix it. The latest example is Connecticut, which is poised to enact a law allegedly aimed at protecting minors on social media, joining a growing trend among other states — like Ohio, Arkansas and Utah — pushing for sweeping online regulations. However, if passed, the law risks landing in federal court over constitutional concerns. On May 14, the Connecticut House passed H.B. 6857 — a bill that would make it illegal for social media platforms to display algorithmic content to minors unless they first verify the user's age and obtain 'verifiable parental consent.' In other words, any app using personalized feeds — like infinite scroll, suggested videos, or targeted posts — would be forced to screen every user or risk violating state law. The bill also defaults minors to one-hour daily limits, blocks notifications after 9 p.m., and restricts interactions so that only approved contacts can view or respond to their content. Platforms must allow parents to override these limits. It passed the House 121–26 and now awaits action in the Senate. Supporters, including Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, say it's necessary to fight youth 'addiction' to platforms like TikTok, Meta, and Snapchat. AG Tong even likened the proposal to past fights against Big Tobacco and the opioid epidemic — suggesting that endless scrolling is the next fentanyl. But setting aside the melodrama, there's a glaring problem with this policy and it's called the Constitution. However, federal courts are already swatting down similar laws. In April, a U.S. district judge in Ohio blocked the state's Social Media Parental Notification Act, ruling that it infringed both parental rights and minors' First Amendment freedoms. The decision came just weeks after another federal judge in Arkansas permanently struck down that state's Social Media Safety Act — which required age verification and parental consent — on the grounds that it was not narrowly tailored and lacked a compelling government interest. The ruling was simple, '[T]here is no evidence that the Act will be effective in achieving [its] goal.' Utah also tried a similar approach. In 2023, the state passed a pair of laws requiring social media platforms to verify users' ages, obtain parental consent for minors, and impose time-based restrictions on access. But after tech industry group NetChoice filed suit, a federal judge blocked the laws, finding they likely violated the First Amendment. Despite a legislative rewrite in 2024, Utah's revised laws were again put on hold. U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby ruled in September that the regulations were not narrowly tailored and imposed content-based restrictions on speech — a constitutional red flag. The message from the courts is clear, and that is states can't violate civil liberties in the name of protecting children, no matter how well-intentioned the law may be. That should matter to legislators. But in Connecticut — as in many states — the urge to 'do something' often overrides constitutional caution. Ironically, this legislation is being pushed in a state that already passed a sweeping data privacy law just last year. That law, which is still in effect, bans targeted ads to minors, prohibits the sale of their data without consent, limits geolocation tracking, and even requires platforms to exercise 'reasonable care' to shield young users from harm. Now lawmakers want to layer another set of vague, legally risky mandates. If passed, the Connecticut bill would apply to any platform with users in the state — meaning national companies could face costly compliance requirements or lawsuits under the state's Unfair Trade Practices Act, just for showing kids a recommended post. There is also the question of resources. Connecticut's own attorney general has publicly said his office is under-resourced. So, who exactly is going to monitor compliance, enforce reporting requirements, and litigate inevitable First Amendment challenges? Apparently, the same office admitting it's already stretched thin. There are better tools for families — ones that don't require deputizing the government as everyone's digital babysitter. App-store level parental controls already exist. Devices can be set to limit access, and many platforms offer family management features. Empowering parents doesn't require disempowering everyone else. Bills like this aren't about safety. They're about signaling. Lawmakers want to appear 'tough on tech' — even if it means trampling constitutional rights and bogging down courts in litigation that will almost certainly end in defeat. For now, the bill sits on the Connecticut Senate calendar, waiting for a vote. If passed, it won't just regulate platforms. It will test the boundaries of what the government can dictate in the name of protecting children. Let's hope the courts keep doing what the legislature refuses to: draw a aren't wrong to worry about kids and social media — they're just dead wrong about how to fix it. The latest example is Connecticut, which is poised to enact a law allegedly aimed at protecting minors on social media, joining a growing trend among other states — like Ohio, Arkansas and Utah — pushing for sweeping online regulations. However, if passed, the law risks landing in federal court over constitutional concerns. On May 14, the Connecticut House passed H.B. 6857 — a bill that would make it illegal for social media platforms to display algorithmic content to minors unless they first verify the user's age and obtain 'verifiable parental consent.' In other words, any app using personalized feeds — like infinite scroll, suggested videos, or targeted posts — would be forced to screen every user or risk violating state law. The bill also defaults minors to one-hour daily limits, blocks notifications after 9 p.m., and restricts interactions so that only approved contacts can view or respond to their content. Platforms must allow parents to override these limits. It passed the House 121–26 and now awaits action in the Senate. Supporters, including Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, say it's necessary to fight youth 'addiction' to platforms like TikTok, Meta, and Snapchat. AG Tong even likened the proposal to past fights against Big Tobacco and the opioid epidemic — suggesting that endless scrolling is the next fentanyl. But setting aside the melodrama, there's a glaring problem with this policy and it's called the Constitution. However, federal courts are already swatting down similar laws. In April, a U.S. district judge in Ohio blocked the state's Social Media Parental Notification Act, ruling that it infringed both parental rights and minors' First Amendment freedoms. The decision came just weeks after another federal judge in Arkansas permanently struck down that state's Social Media Safety Act — which required age verification and parental consent — on the grounds that it was not narrowly tailored and lacked a compelling government interest. The ruling was simple, '[T]here is no evidence that the Act will be effective in achieving [its] goal.' Utah also tried a similar approach. In 2023, the state passed a pair of laws requiring social media platforms to verify users' ages, obtain parental consent for minors, and impose time-based restrictions on access. But after tech industry group NetChoice filed suit, a federal judge blocked the laws, finding they likely violated the First Amendment. Despite a legislative rewrite in 2024, Utah's revised laws were again put on hold. U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby ruled in September that the regulations were not narrowly tailored and imposed content-based restrictions on speech — a constitutional red flag. The message from the courts is clear, and that is states can't violate civil liberties in the name of protecting children, no matter how well-intentioned the law may be. That should matter to legislators. But in Connecticut — as in many states — the urge to 'do something' often overrides constitutional caution. Ironically, this legislation is being pushed in a state that already passed a sweeping data privacy law just last year. That law, which is still in effect, bans targeted ads to minors, prohibits the sale of their data without consent, limits geolocation tracking, and even requires platforms to exercise 'reasonable care' to shield young users from harm. Now lawmakers want to layer another set of vague, legally risky mandates. If passed, the Connecticut bill would apply to any platform with users in the state — meaning national companies could face costly compliance requirements or lawsuits under the state's Unfair Trade Practices Act, just for showing kids a recommended post. There is also the question of resources. Connecticut's own attorney general has publicly said his office is under-resourced. So, who exactly is going to monitor compliance, enforce reporting requirements, and litigate inevitable First Amendment challenges? Apparently, the same office admitting it's already stretched thin. There are better tools for families — ones that don't require deputizing the government as everyone's digital babysitter. App-store level parental controls already exist. Devices can be set to limit access, and many platforms offer family management features. Empowering parents doesn't require disempowering everyone else. Bills like this aren't about safety. They're about signaling. Lawmakers want to appear 'tough on tech' — even if it means trampling constitutional rights and bogging down courts in litigation that will almost certainly end in defeat. For now, the bill sits on the Connecticut Senate calendar, waiting for a vote. If passed, it won't just regulate platforms. It will test the boundaries of what the government can dictate in the name of protecting children. Let's hope the courts keep doing what the legislature refuses to: draw a line. Meghan Portfolio is the Manager of Research and Analysis at Yankee Institute.
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Lawmakers preparing to approve state budget
HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH) — Lawmakers are preparing for the final approval of the state budget on Tuesday. The Connecticut House of Representatives voted to approve the state's two-year budget on Monday evening. Connecticut House Democrats advance $55.8 billion two-year state budget plan News 8 will be updating this story throughout the night as lawmakers deliberate and vote. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Negotiations over housing ensue at Connecticut Capitol
HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH) — Debates could be happening Thursday at the state Capitol surrounding housing. Connecticut House passes changes to Trust Act, expanding rules surrounding ICE calls Debates on this topic happen nearly every legislative session. Lawmakers typically disagree about how much power the state should have over new housing developments. Specifically, debates on Thursday include how much parking should be regulated at new housing developments. Stay with News 8 for updates throughout the night. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
House passes 3 bills in busy day at State Capitol
HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH) — Wednesday was a busy night at the State Capitol as lawmakers debated over bills that could impact gun manufacturers and store owners. It was one of several bills being discussed by state representatives, including bills that affect firefighters and veterans. Connecticut House votes to advance gun manufacturers liability bill House Bill, 7042, The Firearm Industry Responsibility Act, could hold gun manufacturers responsible for the first time. 'This particular bill is doing something that has never been done before,' State Sen. and Deputy Republican leader Rob Sampson (R-16) said. 'Which is to say now we are going to hold a manufacturer of a product responsible for what happens when someone purchases it and uses it in an unlawful way.' The bill allows for lawsuits against manufacturers or gun dealers who market or sell to anyone who is likely to commit violence with that gun. It passed out of the house pretty much down party lines, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed. Now senators are talking about it as it heads to their desk. 'Keeping somebody liable and accountable for their actions, is what we do in private business is what we do in our personal lives,' said State Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff (D-25). 'We should do that with guns as well, I think everybody would think that is common sense.' Legislature votes unanimously to pass bill benefitting firefighter, veteran and military families There is also Senate Bill 1426, which strengthens firefighter cancer relief. It acknowledges that firefighters are exposed to toxins on the jobs and are more likely to develop cancer than the general population. 'We have an opportunity to strengthen our statute and make it easier for our firefighters to access the benefits they need,' State Sen. Jason Perillo (R-21) said. 'It's important step and I'm certainly voting yes like everybody else will as well.' There is also House Bill 6442, The Connecticut Hero Act. It's comprised of nearly a dozen different measures honoring veterans. It starts by naming November as Veteran's Month and new commemorative plates, honoring women and Puerto Rican veterans. It also allows makes it easier for military families to transfer from school to school. State Rep. Jaime Foster (D-57) noted that will be helpful for veterans who are parents of children with special needs. 'The parent is an important part of that team, and to make sure that transition move smoothly and making sure that meeting happens very quickly between when the child moves into the district,' Foster said. All of these bills are headed over to the Senate, and if it passes they are onto the Governor for his signature. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
15-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Squeezed by Trump, blue states try squeezing utilities in return
ALBANY, New York — Flogged by voters — and President Donald Trump — about rising utility bills, Democratic lawmakers in blue states are zeroing in on a juicy target: utility profits. Squeezed by high energy prices on one end and attacks from Republicans on the other, they're introducing proposals from New York to California to limit how much investors can earn from gas and electric utilities. The idea is to defend against attacks like Trump's executive order last week blaming blue states' clean energy policies for high energy costs — and, potentially, to lower bills. 'When you knock on thousands of doors, you start to hear a theme, and the theme was, 'I don't know how I'm going to pay my utility bills,'' said Rhode Island state Rep. Megan Cotter, a Democrat who represents a district Trump won in November. Democrats were already wrestling with high energy prices before Trump regained office. While electricity bills rose 3 percent nationwide from January 2024 to 2025, they rose more than 11 percent in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The rising costs have put Democratic lawmakers and governors on the defensive — and lashing out at utilities and power grid managers — as they face attacks from Republicans and critics of their clean energy goals, the costs of which are starting to show up on bills. Supporters of moving to renewable energy and electrification argue it will ultimately insulate U.S. residents from volatile swings in fossil fuel prices — and provide cleaner air and reduce planet-warming emissions. But since Democrats have vowed sweeping changes to the energy system, they have to ensure voters don't view that transition off fossil fuels as too costly in the short term. 'If the Democrats, who are in the majority, don't do anything about these electric bills, it may end up falling in their lap,' said Connecticut House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora, a Republican. Utility executives are pushing back on the efforts to limit their profits, arguing the moves could dampen investment in the power grid and ultimately drive rates up further. "It hurts our credit worthiness," said Southern California Edison President and CEO Steve Powell. "Our costs go up. And then ultimately, customers end up paying for that." Cotter introduced a bill in January to cap utilities' "return on equity" — a key financial metric for utility companies that determines how much shareholders can earn on their investments — at 4 percent, far below the industry's 2024 average of 9.7 percent. Proposals in New York, California and New Jersey would similarly limit utility profits. New York Sen. James Skoufis' February proposalwould impose a 4 percent cap, like Cotter's, while New Jersey Assemblymember Eliana Pintor Marin introduced one last month emphasizing that utilities should receive the 'lowest reasonable return.' In California, where electricity rates are close to double the national average, Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris is asking the Public Utilities Commission to deny utilities' requests to increase their returns on equity by about 1 percent, which would raise shareholder profits in turn to more than 11 percent. 'Asking to increase it is just totally unacceptable, and honestly, a failure to read the room," Petrie-Norris said. And it's not just Democrats. Republican Sen. Don Gaetz in Florida, the father of former House Rep. Matt Gaetz, also introduced a bill to limit return on equity to a 'risk-free rate of return,' equal to investments considered extremely low risk, like U.S. Treasury bonds. 'Increasingly I have constituents saying to me, 'Why are we paying the rates we are paying?'" Gaetz said in an interview upon introducing the bill in January, as Florida Power & Light Co. prepared to seek a rate hike of 2.5 percent per year over the next four years. Democratic governors are also chiming in. Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont has said he was 'mad as hell' about high summer utility bills. California Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered regulators last fall to cut underperforming energy efficiency programs and maximize the credit customers receive on their bills from the state's cap-and-trade proceeds. In Massachusetts, Gov. Maura Healey last month ordered gas utilities to reduce costs immediately, announced plans to refund millions collected for clean energy programs and promised legislation to limit future rate increases. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul earlier this year slammed Con Edison, the state's largest utility, for proposing double-digit increases for gas and electricity. She told the company to go back to the drawing board and revise its request, which Con Ed declined to do. Con Ed wants to increase its return on equity from the current 9.25 percent to 10.1 percent. 'Shocking,' Hochul said of Con Ed's proposed rate hike. 'This is intolerable to me." Con Ed officials say major investments are needed to support more electric vehicles and heat pumps driven by city and state policies. 'We work with our regulator and other stakeholders to arrive at a rate of return that balances our need to attract investors with our need to keep rates affordable, especially for low- and moderate-income customers,' said Jamie McShane, a spokesperson for Con Ed. 'An adequate ROE allows us to invest in our energy systems and keep them safe and reliable.' State-appointed ratepayer advocates, who work with regulators to try to manage costs, have long advocated for lower returns. But the flurry of interest from elected officials is new. 'It's always an issue in our little world,' said Brian Lipman, the head of New Jersey's Division of Rate Counsel. 'It's the first time I've seen it come outside the utility world and other people paying attention to it.' It's not clear whether the proposals will actually work to lower bills. All else being equal, lower return on equity would lower utilities' costs — and customers' bills. But cutting utilities' returns also risks lowering their bond ratings and increasing their debt costs, as utilities, analysts and some state regulators themselves argue. Utility representatives say the caps proposed in Rhode Island and New York would provide little reason to invest in maintaining the essential systems to deliver gas and electricity — and would raise costs for customers in the long term. 'Lower credit ratings will impact the cost (i.e., interest rates) and availability of debt capital, and over the long term is likely to require much higher overall rates of return, which would need to be recovered from customers through higher utility rates,' said Brian Welsch, vice president of rates and regulatory affairs at New York gas utility National Fuel. Other experts think that while the 4 percent level proposed in Rhode Island would be too low, the bill is moving in the right direction. 'It draws attention to the problem that current authorized ROEs are way too high," said Mark Ellis, former chief economist and chief of corporate strategy at Sempra Energy, the parent company of Southern California Gas Co. and San Diego Gas & Electric, who now advocates for lower returns on equity for utilities nationwide as a way to bring down bills. "The utilities have been overcharging customers for decades." Ellis argues in a report for the American Economic Liberties Project that utilities have been overcharging the public, requesting double digits when they should realistically be earning under 6.7 percent, below the long-term forecast returns for the stock market, since he says utility investments are lower risk. With the current market volatility and plummeting stocks, there could be even more pressure to lower utility returns. New Jersey's ratepayer advocate said he plans to push for lower returns in a pending rate case given the 'current environment.' Bruce Ritchie and Camille von Kaenel contributed to this report. CORRECTION: An earlier version of this report misspelled Steve Powell's name.
