.png)
First introduced in 2022, The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) is a proposed bill in the United States aimed at addressing the growing concerns surrounding the safety of children and teenagers online.
The bill seeks to establish new regulations and requirements for online platforms to implement privacy and safety safeguards. The bill aims to prevent features that increase internet usage by minors, control personalized recommendation algorithms, and limit sharing of personal information provided by minors with other platform users. These include robust age-verification systems, content moderation protocols, and increased parental controls to protect minors.
However, the introduction of this bill has been met with significant controversy, as some argue that it could limit minors’ access to potentially vital resources, and violate the First Amendment by imposing content moderation by the government. The debate surrounding the KOSA bill highlights the delicate balance between safeguarding vulnerable young users and preserving the principles of a free and open internet.
Recent KOSA updates
KOSA saw significant legislative activity through the second half of 2024. In July, the US Senate passed an amended version of the bill with overwhelming bipartisan support.
Following this, in September 2024, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce advanced its own version of KOSA, introducing modifications to the "duty of care" provisions to address concerns about First Amendment implications.
Despite these advancements, the bill's progression has been met with challenges. In December 2024, X (formerly Twitter) collaborated with Senators Richard Blumenthal and Marsha Blackburn to negotiate updated text for KOSA, aiming to alleviate Republican apprehensions regarding potential censorship.
However, organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation have criticized these revisions, asserting that the bill still poses risks to free speech and privacy rights.
As of January 2025, KOSA remains under consideration in Congress. The legislative process continues as lawmakers strive to balance the imperative of protecting minors online with the necessity of upholding constitutional rights.
Learning from the evolution of privacy law
With the importance of introducing measures to keep children safe online, coupled with the controversies around the introduction of KOSA, and concerns around its ethics, let’s go back and take a look at the evolution of privacy laws to understand whether this bill will actually be effective at protecting children online.
The evolution of privacy laws began with the right to be left alone, a principle aimed at protecting individuals from unwarranted public scrutiny. This foundational concept set the stage for future justice by emphasizing the importance of individual autonomy. Early US data breach litigation reflected this, demanding tangible evidence of harm, such as financial loss or identity theft, for legal action. During this time, legal action around privacy was defined by the necessity of concrete harm, a principle that would evolve as society's understanding of privacy deepened.
As privacy laws evolved, they began to address the more nuanced issue of surveillance, capturing the essence of being protected from the feeling of being watched.
This evolution can be seen in the introduction of pen register laws, for example, which were originally designed to regulate the surveillance of telephone metadata. Over time, these laws have been interpreted to apply to modern technologies, such as internet tracking tools and data collection scripts, highlighting the ongoing need to adapt privacy protections to new forms of surveillance
This shift towards protecting the intimate spaces of individuals' lives from external intrusion marked a significant step in doing future justice. The introduction of statutory damages in class action privacy litigation represented a critical evolution, where harm was presumed, acknowledging the intrinsic value of privacy beyond tangible losses.
Today, the focus of privacy litigation has expanded to encompass the preservation of autonomy. The practice of requesting consent using complex privacy policies illustrates how individuals are subtly coerced into choices that serve corporate interests, undermining their autonomy.
The success of privacy protection owes much to the private market for enforcement. Without it, the pace of legal adaptation would lag significantly behind the rapid advancements in the digital world. The industry's response to privacy-preserving measures, despite technological advancements, highlights the persistent challenge of aligning law with technology. Doing the future justice requires exactly that. But we still have a long way to go, of course.
KOSA needs a private right of action
As we reflect on the evolution of privacy, it becomes clear that the path to doing future justice necessitates a framework for private enforcement. The current KOSA proposal, while a step in the right direction, falls short by omitting a private right of action. This omission overlooks the critical role that a market-driven mechanism for legal enforcement plays in ensuring that privacy laws keep pace with technological innovation.
While the bill would allow the Federal Trade Commission to sue apps and websites that don’t take measures to restrict young people’s access to harmful content, this alone is not enough. To truly do the future justice, and keep minors safe online, we must advocate for a regulatory framework that not only addresses current challenges but is also agile enough to adapt to the unforeseen complexities of the digital age.
Protecting the next generation
Building on insights from the evolution of privacy laws, KOSA can only be truly effective in safeguarding children online if it includes a private right of action, empowering parents and children to enforce the law's provisions. Without such a mechanism, enforcement would be left solely to the states, leading to inconsistent application and leaving significant gaps in protection.
This would result in KOSA becoming yet another well-meaning but ultimately ineffective piece of legislation, leaving youth exposed to the very dangers it was designed to address and giving the government the power to moderate online content.
As policymakers continue to grapple with this challenge, they must strive to uphold the fundamental principles of free expression while also shielding the most vulnerable members of our society. Only through this careful and nuanced approach can we hope to create a safer digital landscape for our children to thrive in.
This might interest you:
Partner with Darrow to grow your practice
