Under the legislation, social media companies with more than 5 million users would be required to verify that new and current users are 18 or older. If they’re not, a parent or guardian must consent to the minor having an account.
The proposal would also require social media platforms like Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat and others to implement a usage curfew for minors, give parents access to their child’s account and provide parents tools to limit their child’s daily social media use.
The requirements for social media companies are ultimately aimed at giving parents more authority to intervene in the growing youth mental health crisis caused by frequent social media use, the bill sponsor, state Rep. Mark Tisdel, R-Rochester Hills, told members of the House Regulatory Reform Committee earlier this month.
“When you have these outcomes at the back end, the parents are going to be responsible for picking up the pieces,” Tisdel testified. “If you have responsibility on the back end but no authority on the front end, that’s a bad position to be in. Any of us that’s had a job where your responsibility exceeds your authority, that’s a rough spot and that’s all I’m trying to do. If parents are going to be responsible for the bad outcomes, give them some authority to intervene on the front end.”
Tisdel said his bill requires those 17 and under to have parental consent for a social media account because accepting a platform’s terms of service is similar to signing a contract. He reiterated that minors cannot consent.
“This is a tool for parents,” he said of the legislation. “What other contracts would you allow your 9-year-old to enter into?”
Schools in Michigan have been grappling with how to address climbing rates of anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts. Experts and school administrators have often pointed to daily social media usage as a factor.
Across the U.S., lawmakers have been moving to limit, change or ban access to social media for minors in an effort to shield children from negative mental health outcomes and harmful content.
Some of those state laws banning minors from social media or requiring parental consent have faced First Amendment challenges, permanently blocking some laws and temporarily halting others, according to MultiState, a government relations company.
Those who testified in opposition to the legislation warned that Tisdel’s bill wouldn’t protect kids. Instead, they argued, it would end up costing the state money in litigation.
“Michigan has nothing to gain by throwing its hat in the ring other than bearing the costs of hefty attorney’s fees to defend the bill that has been abandoned even by advocates in Utah, the state that pioneered this bill,” said Caden Rosenbaum, managing director of technology policy at Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank. “The bill before you today places a burden on people’s First Amendment right to speak by requiring them to identify themselves with privacy-invasive age verification requirements.
“That would mean showing an ID or forking over biometric information just to prove that they’re adults, to speak their mind, to disclose the truth or even just learn what others have to say.”
Under the legislation, the Michigan attorney general would be responsible for deciding how social media companies would verify age, residency and consent of users in the state. The methods to establish residency could not be limited to a government-issued ID. The AG’s office would also issue requirements to social media companies to protect that information.
Tisdel pushed back on the claims that requiring age verification for social media is a free speech issue.
“When was the last time you had to sign a contract to exercise your free speech rights?” he asked his colleagues.
Some who opposed the bill also testified that parents have existing tools to curtail and monitor their child’s social media use.
“Our members are already addressing these concerns through parental controls, time limits, enhanced privacy settings,” said Megan Stokes, state policy director at the Computer and Communications Industry Association. “We urge the committee to support efforts like digital citizenship education and to work with businesses to refine their existing tools rather than imposing what amounts to a blanket ban that infringes on individual rights.”
The association is an international nonprofit trade association that represents “a broad cross section” of communications and technology firms.
Most social media sites require users to be at least 13 years old.
Under the bill, social media companies would be required to verify that new and current users are 18 or older. If they’re not, a parent or guardian must consent to the minor having an account.
And if no consent is given, the minor would be banned from using an existing account or creating a new one.
People ages 18 and older that fail to verify their age would also be blocked from using an existing or new account until they verify their age.
The consenting parent would be required to have access to the minor’s social media account, with that access entailing the ability to view all posts made by the minor and all messages sent or received by the minor.
All minors’ accounts would be subject to a curfew, where social media usage is blocked from 10:30 p.m. until 6:30 a.m. unless the consenting parent disables or changes that curfew.
Additionally, social media companies would be required to give the consenting parents a tool to limit the number of hours that the minor can use their account each day.
Minor accounts wouldn’t show up in search results on a social media platform, except when the minor account is linked to other accounts through friend connections.
And social media companies would also be prohibited from using targeted advertising or targeted friend, group or post suggestions on minor accounts as well as collecting or using personal information from those accounts.
The bill would require the attorney general to investigate citizen complaints alleging a violation of the proposed act. The attorney general would be empowered to bring a civil suit against social media companies and to seek $2,500 per violation and other damages.
Tisdel introduced the bill last year, but it did not make it out of committee in the then-Democratic-controlled House.
Tisdel has also put forward another bill that would restrict student cell phone usage in K-12 schools in an effort to curb constant social media access but also increase learning and mental health outcomes.
© 2025 Advance Local Media LLC. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
