2 days ago
Opinion: Utah's child safety laws are safe from Congress
Tech-policy alarmists are sounding false alarms. They claim Congress's proposed AI funding rules will gut state laws protecting children online. They're wrong. And Utah proves it.
Here's what's actually happening: The Senate wants to attach strings to $42 billion in state broadband and AI infrastructure grants. States that heavily regulate AI won't get the money. But there's a crucial exception: laws that apply equally to all technology, AI or otherwise, remain untouched.
Utah's new social media law, SB 194, falls squarely in this safe zone. The law requires platforms to turn off certain interface features for kids: autoplay videos, infinite scroll, late-night notifications. These rules apply whether TikTok feed uses sophisticated AI, a simple randomizer, or human curation. The technology behind the curtain doesn't matter, only what appears on the screen.
This distinction matters. Utah isn't regulating AI; it's regulating interface design features. A platform using 1990s technology faces the same requirements as one using cutting-edge neural networks. That's exactly the kind of technology-neutral law Congress explicitly protects.
The Senate's approach, championed by Sen. Ted Cruz, cleverly sidesteps procedural concerns while preserving state flexibility. Instead of banning state AI laws outright, it simply directs federal infrastructure dollars elsewhere. States remain free to choose: keep restrictive AI regulations and forgo federal funds, or create an innovation-friendly environment and receive billions in investment.
Given the spending condition's broad language, critics understandably worry about overreach. 'AI' and 'automated decisionmaking' are vague concepts and it is possible, with semantic gymnastics, to imagine any computer system being implicated. That's exactly why so much state AI regulation creates regulatory uncertainty.
But the Senate funding condition is quite different in practical effect. Unlike state laws, federal spending authority is highly discretionary. The federal Commerce Department can choose how to apply this standard when it doles out this funding. Ask yourself: would any Republican Commerce Department twist these rules to attack state child safety laws? The political cost would be enormous, the legal basis dubious.
Congress's real target is clear: vague, sweeping AI regulations like those in Colorado that threaten to strangle innovation. These laws create uncertainty for businesses and slow the development of beneficial AI applications — including those that could help protect children online.
Congress wants to prevent a patchwork of conflicting state AI rules that would cripple America's competitive edge. But lawmakers explicitly carved out room for technology-neutral consumer protections. Utah's approach meets this exemption because it regulates visible features rather than invisible algorithms.
The bottom line: Congress's spending choices on AI infrastructure don't change how states can protect kids online. The alarmists should take note.
