Podcast Summary: "What to Expect from US States on Child Online Safety in 2026"

Podcast: The Tech Policy Press Podcast
Episode Date: January 11, 2026
Host: Tech Policy Press (Justin Hendricks, Cristiano Lima Strong)
Guests:

• Amina Fazlullah (Head of Tech Policy Advocacy, Common Sense Media)
• Joel Thayer (President, Digital Progress Institute)
• Kate Ruane (Director, Free Expression Project, Center for Democracy and Technology)

Overview

This episode explores the rapidly evolving landscape of child online safety regulation in the United States. With states and the federal government advancing new laws—often with diverging philosophies and legal hurdles—the panel discusses where state-level policy is headed in 2026. The conversation highlights model legislative efforts, the ongoing legal and constitutional challenges, the interplay between federal and state actions, and the emerging issues around kids’ use of AI and social media.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Varied State Approaches to Child Online Safety

[03:04 - 07:45]

• Kate Ruane outlines key legislative "buckets" at the state level:
  • Age-Appropriate Design Codes: Started in California; similar bills elsewhere face First Amendment court challenges.
    • “California’s, ...has now been enjoined multiple times by courts for potential First Amendment violations.” — Kate [03:12]
  • Age Verification Requirements: Especially for adult content, with a Texas law upheld by the Supreme Court.
    • “A law like this was actually upheld by the Supreme Court recently.” — Kate [03:44]
  • Access Restrictions: Banning children under certain ages from platforms, also under legal scrutiny.
  • App Store Accountability: Newer laws place age verification duties on app stores.
    • “Another...are the laws that require app stores to do age verification ...those laws are also now being challenged in the courts.” — Kate [04:46]
• Amina Fazlullah adds focus on:
  • Social Media Labels: Following the Surgeon General’s call, three states have enacted these labels.
    • “...a newer approach following the Surgeon General’s...has been passed in three states already, so Minnesota, California and New York.” — Amina [05:32]
  • AI-Specific Safeguards: Guardrails like mental health redirects and chatbot labeling showing early legislative momentum in NY and California.
    • “Notifications, mental health redirects when you’re talking to a chatbot, so that you know that you’re talking to a chatbot ...have popped up in at least two states...” — Amina [07:08]

2. Age Verification: Approaches and Tensions

[07:45 - 11:21]

• Joel Thayer addresses the political and legal calculations states must weigh:
  • Blocking children from adult content has broad appeal and recent court support, but extending age checks to general social media/app usage faces constitutional ambiguity.
  • States often pursue “all of the above” strategies, influenced by local priorities and political will.
    • “I’m getting the sense that every state wants an all the above strategy and...have their various solutions. And it seems like states are pretty eager to test out these theories...” — Joel [10:25]

3. The Courts: Constitutional Hurdles and Legal Uncertainty

[11:21 - 19:29]

• Majority of laws are in limbo, often blocked or under litigation.
  • “Very few of these laws...have been allowed to actually take effect...even with a caveat from the justices...that they actually think the law probably violates the Constitution.” — Kate [11:38]
• First Amendment is at the center of debate:
  • Distinctions between restricting obscene content (potentially permissible) vs. restricting general speech (faces strict scrutiny).
    • “Minors have the constitutional right to engage in and access a lot of speech as long as it is not obscene for them.” — Kate [12:35]
• Divergence on Court Reasoning:
  • Kate and Joel disagree on Supreme Court interpretations and future openness to age verification for protected speech—but agree that the jurisprudence is unsettled.
    • “First Amendment jurisprudence is very messy...I think what the courts are doing...they are trying to firm up a little bit more of what they’re talking about.” — Joel [18:45]

4. Shifts in Legislative Strategy Given Legal Headwinds

[19:29 - 21:19]

• Amina: States may pivot toward:
  • Feature-based regulation (targeting platform or AI product features, not content) to sidestep First Amendment issues.
  • More interest in warning-label legislation and AI product responsibility.
    • “You’re seeing...a new interest in the social media warning label...And then...in the AI space, I think the focus is on the product and how it’s interacting with the customer...” — Amina [20:16]

5. Forward-Looking Trends for 2026

[21:19 - 28:41]

• Joel: Generative AI will be a focal point, especially under the influence of recent White House actions. Tension exists between state and federal approaches.
  • “Generative AI is going to be a major political boondoggle...you’re going to continue to see a lot of the same, with respect to social media and also with age verification, especially as these court cases come through.” — Joel [21:41]
• Amina: Cites increased urgency due to research showing rapid teen adoption of AI companions and associated privacy and manipulation risks.
  • “We found 70% of teens are already using what we’ve described as AI companions...30% were already preferring conversations with the chatbot over or similarly to other humans.” — Amina [26:03]
• Kate: Wishes for greater focus on privacy, particularly regarding kids’ data in generative AI systems; warns against federal preemption that would hamstring state action.
  • “We have not seen the federal government step up and engage in creating comprehensive consumer privacy legislation that applies to social media, let alone to generative AI systems...” — Kate [27:25]

6. The Preemption Question: Federal vs. State Roles

[28:41 - 34:06]

• Joel: Prefers narrow (conflict) preemption rather than broad “relates to” preemption, to allow state innovation.
  • “I’m not a big fan of...the white swath preemption...I think that states do have a say here and I think ultimately that’s how we’re going to get things...that there are aspects of state laws just works better than how the federal law would operate.” — Joel [31:51]
• Kate: Warns broad federal preemption could invalidate even longstanding state consumer protection laws.
  • “It’s not just the specific targeted things that states want to do, it’s also the broad, generally applicable regular tort law...that would be swept into this as well. And I think that’s hugely concerning.” — Kate [32:39]
• Amina: Argues for “every cop on the beat” and that state dynamism informs better federal policy.
  • “You want to have every cop on the beat, you want to have those state legislators engaging and lifting up ags, identifying, using their existing tools...That all feeds into...a very healthy federal level process...” — Amina [33:23]

7. Final Thoughts and Watch List for 2026

[34:06 - 38:54]

• Amina:
  • Watching for: new generative AI laws; broad consumer protection bills including AI; warning label/warning feature bills; progress on age assurance mechanisms; privacy law updates.
    • “The first thing I’m going to be keeping an eye out for is bills on moving forward related to generative AI and kids safety, but also broader bills...I think we’ll also see futures-based legislation or warning label type legislation moving through the states.” — Amina [34:30]
• Joel:
  • Optimistic about bipartisan consensus on the need for action and the possibility of real privacy legislation, asserts the issue will permeate many policy areas.
    • “I’m actually very encouraged that these conversations are happening...I am actually hopeful that we will see something that Kate wants and I want as well, which is a real at bat for privacy.” — Joel [35:32]
• Kate:
  • Hopes court opinions will lead to improved legislation, especially around privacy safeguards when collecting data for age verification.
    • “I would love to see some of the state legislators start to grapple with that and build some of these protections into the statute itself...” — Kate [36:59]

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Kate Ruane [12:35]:

  “Minors have the constitutional right to...access all constitutionally protected speech as long as it is not obscene for them.”

• Joel Thayer [18:45]:

  “First Amendment jurisprudence is very messy. It’s not like there’s a linear line between when this fits into one category or another...I think what the courts are doing...they are trying to firm up a little bit more of what they’re talking about.”

• Amina Fazlullah [26:03]:

  “We found 70% of teens are already using what we’ve described as AI companions...30% were already preferring conversations with the chatbot over or similarly to other humans...the pace of uptake of these products...is pretty dramatic.”

• Joel Thayer [35:32]:

  “I’m actually very encouraged that these conversations are happening and they’re still happening. And that I do think that whether you’re a Democrat or Republican ... everyone really agrees that there is an issue in this market that need to be resolved.”

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [03:04] — State law models overview
• [05:32] — Social media label laws
• [07:08] — AI-specific guardrails in state laws
• [11:38] — Status of state laws in courts
• [12:35] — Children’s First Amendment rights
• [18:45] — Messy First Amendment jurisprudence
• [20:16] — Feature-based vs. content-based legislative approaches
• [21:41] — AI’s emerging role and political urgency
• [26:03] — Research on teen use of AI chatbots
• [28:41] — Preemption and federal/state tension
• [34:30] — What to watch for in 2026 legislative activity

Conclusion

The episode portrays a policy landscape marked by innovation, legal uncertainty, and rapid technological advances, especially regarding AI’s role in youth digital experience. States remain at the forefront—experimenting with design standards, age verification, and AI-specific rules—amid ongoing First Amendment battles and looming federal preemption. All guests stress the critical importance of privacy, caution against overbroad federal preemption, and highlight the need for continued vigilance, debate, and legislative creativity as the nature of online harm, technology, and regulatory responses continue to evolve.

For more information, visit TechPolicy.Press.