Member Benefits
How to Join
En Espanol
The national conversation around students’ use of social media seems almost inescapable—and rightly so. Ninety-five percent of youth ages 13–17 report using a social media platform, with more than a third of them using social media “almost constantly.”1 According to a recent advisory from former US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, use of these platforms can be detrimental to young people’s health, potentially leading to tech addiction, sleep deficits, and increased levels of stress, among other harms.2 The American public is becoming increasingly aware of how the platforms have disguised addiction as “engagement” to justify their deliberate designs. Now, more than ever, families, educators, and advocates are clamoring for solutions to hold social media platforms accountable.
Over the past two legislative sessions, state and local governments have taken a variety of approaches to keep children safe and hold social media platforms accountable for their dangerous designs. Legislative strategies range from limiting use of cellphones in schools* and redesigning tech products and social media platforms, to increasing requirements for parental controls and even banning social media platform use by young people. Read on for a brief overview of these efforts, and some of the pros and cons of these differing approaches.
Cellphones and Schools
At first glance, removing cellphones from schools seems like an immediate fix. In theory, if young people have several hours of mandatory phone-free time during the school day, the impact of these devices will be lessened.
In May 2023, Florida enacted a law that required all school districts to develop and implement rules barring students’ use of cellphones during class time.3 Eight other states have since taken similar actions, with many school districts or local governments across the country instituting phone policies as well.4 These state-level laws and local policies vary greatly. Some prohibit use of cellphones for the entirety of the school day, while others limit their use only during instruction.5
One thing every phone-free school policy has in common is the creation of additional burdens on educators, who are required to enforce the policy and take action to ensure students comply. The policies also do not address the underlying risks associated with social media since the focus is on when students have access, rather than the addictive design features of the products and the documented harms associated with their use.
Because this is an emerging trend, little is known about the impact that cellphone policies are having in schools and whether there’s evidence of disparate impact or enforcement. Reporting suggests that cellphone bans or limits during the school day reduce distraction in the classroom and that prohibiting the use of phones during nonlearning time increases social interactions between students at lunch.6 Where phone use has been tied to bullying or fighting during the school day, there seems to be a sense that restricting phone use has a positive impact. Now, questions are emerging about addressing the use of smartwatches and other related devices.
More data need to be gathered on parents’ and caregivers’ perspectives, but there seems to be some division. A 2024 survey found that 66 percent of parents believe students should be allowed to have cellphones in school, but only 30 percent feel phones should be allowed in the classroom. This seems to stem from some parents wanting to be able to contact students during the school day on their personal devices in case of emergency.7 Students also report mixed feelings about the policies, with some finding bans infantilizing and others appreciating what they see as a positive impact on their in-person interactions with peers.8
Design-Focused Legislation
State legislatures have been looking at various opportunities to address the risks that social media poses to children and teens.9 Another trend that has emerged is regulating the design of online services, products, and features to increase safety for youth. Some states, like California,10 Maryland,11 and Vermont,12 have explored versions of age-appropriate design codes that limit how tech companies may collect, retain, and use the personal data of minors; require privacy settings be heightened by default; and prohibit companies from employing design features such as manipulative practices and profiling. These requirements would result in social media—and other online spaces such as video games—being redesigned to limit the ways companies manipulate a minor’s personal data to create addictive online experiences that draw them in and keep them scrolling longer than they might have intended.
State legislatures took their inspiration from the Age Appropriate Design Code passed in 2020 in the United Kingdom. Since that time, companies have made hundreds of changes in the UK to their platforms that have enhanced youths’ online experiences by mitigating the impact of notifications, prohibiting direct messaging from strangers, creating options for chronological feeds, and pushing screen time reminders.13 In fact, some of the largest social media platforms rolled out large campaigns this past fall focused on such changes, as well as increased parental control options, in an effort to assure families of their products’ safety. But as the Q&A participants note (see here), these self-imposed changes do not go far enough and can be difficult for parents and caregivers to use—so stricter legislation is still needed.
Some states, such as New York,14 have prohibited social media’s use of nighttime notifications and algorithmic feeds without parent or caregiver consent. This model is specifically targeting social media feeds and notifications because of their potential to create addiction-like behaviors in young people.15
The goal of both legislative approaches is to negate the ways the products manipulate users by requiring that companies take responsibility for their intentional product designs. Reducing addictive design elements can potentially make students less distracted and sleep-deprived by the apps on their cellphones.
Design-focused legislation attempts to avoid addressing behaviors typically considered speech and thus avoid the First Amendment arguments that social media platforms use to fight regulatory efforts; yet, tech trade associations continue to file lawsuits against regulation.16 For example, a lawsuit is currently preventing implementation of the California Age-Appropriate Design Code.17 As a result, versions of that law introduced in other states, like Maryland, were amended, and the Maryland Kids Code went into effect in October 2024.18
The Impact of Ban Bills and Parental Controls
Some states have sought to outright prohibit children’s and teens’ use of social media platforms. This model of regulation began in Utah in 2023 and would have resulted in children and teens being unable to create a social media account without parental consent.19 The law would also have given parents extensive access to their child’s account, along with some other platform design changes. Ohio quickly followed in Utah’s footsteps, but both states’ laws were effectively blocked through litigation by a tech trade association. Utah then repealed its law and replaced it with legislation focused more on parental supervision of minors’ accounts. Ohio allowed the court’s stay to stand. It is evident that reliance on bans or parental controls will not correct the underlying problem. Tech companies will continue to intentionally design addictive products and foist all responsibility for addressing harms inherent to their product design onto families.
Each of the above efforts highlights the need for action. As noted by Surgeon General Murthy, in times of crisis we do not have the luxury to wait for perfect information; we must assess the available facts, use our best judgment, and act quickly to respond.20 Educators, families, school district leaders, and local, state, and federal lawmakers are facing a growing crisis related to adolescent mental health and the impact of tech overuse. Together, we must respond based on the available facts and our best judgment. There are no easy solutions, but rather a multitude of tools we must use to try to forge a better tomorrow.
Marisa Shea is a lawyer who advocates for policy reform at the state level. She’s a former policy committee staffer for the California State Senate, where she focused on policy work aimed at creating better resourced, more equitable communities.
*If you would like to get involved in reducing phone use among children, see the resources developed for families, educators, and advocates by The Anxious Generation coalition at anxiousgeneration.com/resources. (return to article)
Endnotes
1. Social Media and Youth Mental Health: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory (Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, May 23, 2023), 7, hhs.gov/sites/default/files/sg-youth-mental-health-social-media-advisory.pdf.
2. Social Media and Youth Mental Health.
3. Florida Senate, “House of Representative Staff Final Bill Analysis: Bill CS/HB 379, Technology in K–12 Public Schools,” flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/379/Analyses/h0379z.CIS.PDF.
4. S. Tavernise and N. Singer, “The Push to Ban Phones in Schools,” New York Times, September 3, 2024, nytimes.com/2024/09/03/podcasts/the-daily/phone-ban-school.html.
5. Tavernise and Singer, “The Push.”
6. Tavernise and Singer, “The Push.”
7. C. Ritter, “Cell Phones in Schools Are a Complicated Issue, New Poll Finds,” Engage by EdChoice, August 8, 2024, edchoice.org/engage/cell-phones-in-schools-are-a-complicated-issue-new-poll-finds/#:~:text=In%20the%20meantime%2C%20getting%20a,higher%20than%20parents%20on%20average.
8. N. Singer, “This Florida School District Banned Cellphones. Here’s What Happened,” New York Times, October 31, 2023, nytimes.com/2023/10/31/technology/florida-school-cellphone-tiktok-ban.html.
9. R. Reader, “States Get Serious About Limiting Kids’ Social Media Exposure,” Politico, January 13, 2024, politico.com/news/2024/01/13/kids-online-states-social-media-00135390.
10. California Assembly Bill 2273, Ch. 320 (2022), leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2273.
11. Maryland House Bill 603, Ch. 461 (2024), mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/HB0603?ys=2024rs.
12. Vermont Senate Bill 289 (2024), legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2024/S.289.
13. J. Mootz and K. Blocker, UK Age-Appropriate Design Code: Impact Assessment (New York: Children and Screens: Institute of Digital Media and Child Development, March 2024), childrenandscreens.org/newsroom/news/uks-age-appropriate-design-code-ushers-in-nearly-100-safe-digital-space-changes-for-youth.
14. New York Senate Bill 7694A (2024), nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S7694/amendment/A.
15. T. Bernard, “Considering New York’s Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation for Kids Act,” Tech Policy Press, June 26, 2024, techpolicy.press/considering-new-yorks-stop-addictive-feeds-exploitation-for-kids-act.
16. A. Jenkins, “Tech Industry Group Beefs Up Efforts to Battle States in Court,” Pluribus News, March 21, 2023, pluribusnews.com/news-and-events/tech-industry-group-beefs-up-efforts-to-battle-states-in-court.
17. P. Benson, “NetChoice v. Bonta and First Amendment Limits on Protecting Children Online,” Congressional Research Service, November 1, 2023, crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11071.
18. G. Bixby, “Maryland Kids Code Internet Safety Policy Becomes Law,” MoCo360, October 2, 2024, moco360.media/2024/10/02/maryland-kids-code-internet-safety-policy-becomes-law/#:~:text=The%20part%20that%20became%20law,go%20into%20effect%20in%202025.
19. Utah Senate Bill 152, Ch. 498 (2023), le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/SB0152.html.
20. V. Murthy, “Surgeon General: Why I’m Calling for a Warning Label on Social Media Platforms,” New York Times, June 17, 2024, nytimes.com/2024/06/17/opinion/social-media-health-warning.html.
[Photos, from top: AP Photo / Susan Walsh; AP Photo / Rick Bowmer, File; AFT]