A bill that gained bipartisan support in the Washington state Senate to strengthen online safety for children has failed to move forward in the House.
Senate Bill 5708 came at the request of Attorney General Nick Brown’s office and would have prevented social media companies from pushing addictive feeds and sending notification alerts during certain hours to children under age 18. Gov. Bob Ferguson also backed the bill.
It passed the Senate with bipartisan support, with eight Republicans joining Democrats, but failed to receive a hearing in the House Consumer Protection and Business Committee ahead of a Wednesday deadline.
The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Noel Frame, D-Seattle, said she knew the bill needed more work, but was disappointed it didn’t receive a public hearing in the House.
“It felt like a pretty abrupt end,” she said, adding that supporters had “already compromised quite a bit” on the bill.
Likewise, Brown said he was disappointed the bill didn’t get a House hearing, calling the proposal a “commonsense” step to improve youth mental health.
“Compulsive social media use has demonstrably harmful impacts on young people. It’s disappointing not everyone is treating this crisis with the urgency it deserves,” he said.
The bill was also backed by the Washington Children’s Alliance, an advocacy organization, after conversations with educators and health officials raised alarm about how social media can negatively affect children.
Since the pandemic, there’s been an increase in depression and anxiety among children. In a 2023 advisory, the U.S. Surgeon General recommended that policymakers pursue policies to limit children’s access to social media to reduce the risk of harm.
“The root cause of so much of the depression and anxiety that we see all across the nation for kids is because they all have access to phones and are getting pumped with all of these really harmful feeds that are coming at all hours of the day and night,” said Stephan Blanford, executive director of the Children’s Alliance.
The lack of federal legislation has led to states taking action to address online safety for children and the behavioral problems it poses. California approved laws along these lines in 2022 and 2024 that industry-backed lawsuits have tied up in court.
Frame’s bill contains similar provisions to the California legislation. However, she said that many of the criticisms around the bill were distractions and that the attorney general was aware of the lawsuits and that the bill was designed to avoid traps seen in other states.
“It’s a complicated bill,” she said, adding it was easy for the tech industry to highlight the flaws the bill initially had.
Blanford said the Children’s Alliance worked with the attorney general’s office to draft the legislation and ensure it was constitutional and that the bill was designed to address some of the patterns that can leave children addicted to social media feeds.
“Technology companies have a huge incentive, financial incentive, to addict our children to their products,” Blanford said.
Rep. Amy Walen, D-Kirkland, the chair of the Consumer Protection and Business Committee, said concerns about the constitutionality of the bill and privacy violations for youth led to her decision not to hear it this session.
“It felt like it wasn’t ready and that’s what I kept hearing from people,” Walen said.
Walen rejected suggestions that her decision had to do with Microsoft being located in her district.
“I work for the people,” Walen said. “The 48th legislative district, that’s who I work for.”
Instead, Walen said she hoped to explore the issue further and work with technology companies to see how to refine the bill ahead of the next session.
Sen. Keith Wagoner, R-Sedro Wooley, one of the cosponsors, said he supported the intent of the bill but still thinks it needs more work and that lawmakers need to engage further on it with tech companies and wait until the California litigation is resolved.
Sen. Manka Dhingra, D-Redmond, was the only Democrat who voted against the bill when it passed the Senate. She said Tuesday that regulating technology can be a challenge.
“I actually think it needs to wait a year or wait until some of those other states have resolved it so we have more clear direction on where we need to go,” Dhingra said.
Support non-profit journalism
This article has been reposted with permission from the Washington State Standard, part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization and committed to shining “a light on policy and politics in all 50 states.” Click here to support nonprofit, freely distributed, independent local journalism. Read this article and others online at Washington State Standard.
