{"id":8913,"date":"2023-04-06T16:27:41","date_gmt":"2023-04-06T16:27:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=8913"},"modified":"2023-04-06T16:27:41","modified_gmt":"2023-04-06T16:27:41","slug":"utahs-social-media-regulation-act-first-amendment-data-privacy-concerns%ef%bf%bc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/utahs-social-media-regulation-act-first-amendment-data-privacy-concerns%ef%bf%bc\/","title":{"rendered":"Utah\u2019s Social Media Regulation Act: First Amendment & Data Privacy Concerns\ufffc"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Social Media Regulation Act<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On March 23, 2023, Utah became one of the first states in the country to enact legislation that would extensively regulate how minors<\/a> can use social media. The Social Media Regulation Act<\/a> will go into effect on March 1, 2024 and will impose a two-fold requirement on social media companies, as well as minors. First, social media companies will now be required to verify the age of any account user<\/a> and minors will be required to obtain parental consent before signing up for a social media account. Additionally, unless minors obtain their parent\u2019s consent, they will be foreclosed from using a social media site from the hours of 10:30pm to 6:30am.<\/a> Second, the legislation will require social media companies to \u201censure that they are not designed to cause minors to become addicted to them and gives Utah minors the right to sue<\/a> social media companies if they believe they\u2019ve become addicted to or otherwise somehow harmed by a social media platform they have an account on.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

As justification for this sweeping law, legislators have cited studies that show the detrimental impact of social media<\/a> on children. This is evidenced by the fact that nearly 45%<\/a> of teens have stated they are online constantly. Further, researchers from the Columbia University Clinic of Anxiety and Related Disorders have stated that constant social media use can be a catalyst for \u201csocial isolation\u201d and can lead to children \u201chaving a false sense of how the world really works.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While this law is in many ways novel, it is worth noting that \u201c[c]ompanies are already prohibited from collecting data on children under 13 without parental consent under the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act<\/a>.\u201d Yet, proponents of the Utah law have stated that current age verification processes<\/a> are easy to get around. Thus, it seems that the Social Media Regulation Act will force companies to have stricter verification process<\/a> that go beyond the simple \u201cYou must be 18 years old to access this website\u201d clickwrap. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Data Privacy & First Amendment Concerns<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately, the stricter verification process in itself has potential problems. In particular, civil liberties groups have claimed that requiring government-issued identification as a method of verification leads \u201ctowards an internet where our private data is collected and sold by default<\/a>.\u201d Moreover, \u201cthere\u2019s no way for a website visitor to be certain that the data they\u2019re handing over is not going to be retained . . .\u201d and there is always the risk that \u201cthieves will steal it<\/a>.\u201d This concern is only compounded by the fact that the data privacy regulatory system in the United States (U.S.) is very balkanized. Unlike the European Union\u2019s General Data Protection Regulation<\/a> which allows individuals to \u201ceffectively own their personal information and thus presumptively have the legal right to control it . . .\u201d \u2013 the U.S. has no comparable law. Rather, the U.S. employs a multitude of different laws<\/a> such as the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act or Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. While these laws \u201cprevent misuse of certain categories of personal information . . .\u201d, they are only \u201capplicable to specific industries and types of institutions<\/a>.\u201d Thus, the current U.S. system can leave consumers with little control over how and who can collect their data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, there is a concern that “identity verification rules [will] take away consumers’ rights to use these services anonymously . . .” by requiring users to input a valid form of identification and will ultimately “suppress everyone’s speech.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In addition to data security concerns, the verification process also potentially raises issues surrounding accessibility and the First Amendment. For example, the Electronic Frontier Foundation<\/a> has argued that laws such as this can disproportionally affect lower-income and marginalized communities that often have many \u201cresidents without a form of government-issued identification.\u201d As for the First Amendment concerns, it is settled law that the Constitution protects individuals right to publish anonymously<\/a> in the literary and political realms. Proof of the importance the Framer\u2019s placed on right of anonymity is evident by the fact that \u201carguments favoring the ratification of the Constitution advanced in the Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names<\/a>.\u201d Thus, there is a concern that \u201cidentity verification rules [will] take away consumers\u2019 rights to use these services anonymously . . .\u201d<\/a> by requiring users to input a valid form of identification and will ultimately \u201csuppress everyone\u2019s speech.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While it is clear that social media is a double-edged sword that can be dangerous when used incorrectly \u2013 the question still remains on how to best balance the interests of the parties involved. It has long been established that \u201cthe interest[s] of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children . . . is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized[.]<\/a>\u201d However, while it is important to give parents the tools necessary to safely rear their children, it is paramount that legislators weigh the countervailing costs of legislation such as this. One has to look no further than the debacle over TikTok\u2019s use of U.S. consumers\u2019 data<\/a> to understand the concern about giving social media platforms easier access to data. Regardless of whether one agrees with the actions of the Utah legislature, the questions posed by their course of action in regards to child safety, data privacy, and First Amendment rights are questions worth grappling with.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Andreas C. Myers<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Andreas is a first-generation college graduate and law student from Davidson, North Carolina. Andreas graduated from the University of North Carolina \u2013 Charlotte with a B.A. in Political Science and a Minor in Legal Studies. In law school, Andreas is the Treasurer of the Hispanic Latino Law Students\u2019 Association and a staff member on the North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Social Media Regulation Act On March 23, 2023, Utah became one of the first states in the country to enact legislation that would extensively regulate how minors can use social media. The Social Media Regulation Act will go into effect on March 1, 2024 and will impose a two-fold requirement on social media companies, as well as minors. First, …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[494,429,404,163,428],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8913"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8913"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8913\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8915,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8913\/revisions\/8915"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8913"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8913"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8913"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}