To: Kentucky Legislature
From: The Rainey Center Freedom Project
Re: Legislative Analysis & Recommendations on Kentucky HB 227
Dear Sponsors and Members of the Kentucky Legislature,
On behalf of Rainey Center Freedom Project (RCFP), an organization committed to advancing equality and freedom, I write to comment on Kentucky’s HB 227 relating to social media platforms and the prohibition of “addictive feeds” for minors. We share the Legislature’s desire to protect children from online harms. However, we urge lawmakers to consider an alternative approach that would more effectively safeguard minors while avoiding the constitutional, privacy, and practical concerns that HB 227 presents in its current form.
1. We Strongly Support the Protection of Minors Online
RCFP shares a commitment to ensuring that minors can experience the benefits of online communities without being exposed to content or practices that might harm their wellbeing. We wholeheartedly endorse the Legislature’s goal of preventing exploitative or harmful features that target minors. At the same time, we believe that overbroad or duplicative regulations may hinder the legitimate services and safety tools that modern social platforms have invested in and developed.
2. Recent Industry Actions That Benefit Minors
We appreciate that many social media platforms have voluntarily implemented robust measures to protect minors:
Age-Appropriate Privacy Defaults
Meta (Facebook and Instagram) now defaults new teen accounts to more private settings, limiting who can see their posts and contact them directly.
Age Verification Innovations
Major platforms are exploring or already deploying artificial intelligence and user feedback loops to detect underage accounts, verify ages, and more quickly address reports.
Enhanced Parental Controls
Leading platforms offer parents and guardians tools to supervise minors’ online activities, set time limits, and control content exposure (e.g., Instagram Teens, which allows parents to control what content their child sees and how much time is spent on the platform).
Content Restriction & Moderation
Extensive content moderation systems, including AI detection and human review teams, regularly identify and remove content harmful to children.
These measures show that platforms are actively partnering with families and policymakers to foster a safer environment for young users. We encourage the Legislature to build on this progress rather than pursue legislation that could inadvertently undercut or fragment these proven safety efforts.
3. Concerns Regarding HB 227
We recognize the impetus behind HB 227. Nonetheless, certain provisions raise constitutional, practical, and privacy concerns:
Overbroad Definition of “Addictive Feed”
The bill’s definition of “addictive feed” sweeps in many core content-recommendation features that are not necessarily exploitative or harmful. As we noted in our analysis of similar legislation in Virginia and Connecticut, social media companies use algorithms to ensure that users have access to age-appropriate content. Limitations on these algorithms can prevent companies from delivering such content, undermining the very purpose of the legislation. If the bill is intended to address harmful design features, we recommend a narrower approach that focuses on demonstrably manipulative practices.
Privacy Risks from Mandatory Age Estimation
Under the current language, social media platforms may be forced to verify every user’s age to prove a user is not a minor. Our research indicates that privacy ranks as the most important issue in technology policy for 50% of Americans. Blanket age verification often requires intrusive data collection, posing additional privacy concerns. Rather than securing user privacy, HB 227 would significantly expand the personal data that platforms must collect on every Kentucky user, including on parents who must provide “verifiable parental consent.” A more flexible approach that encourages industry innovation in privacy-preserving age verification would be more effective.
Constitutional Concerns
The First Amendment enumerates freedoms of both speech and the press. As it stands, it has been deemed unconstitutional to restrict any form of lawful speech, even by parents. HB 227 restricts users’ rights to receive protected expression by conditioning access on age estimation and parental consent. It also infringes on platforms’ editorial discretion by prohibiting personalized content curation. As we have seen in similar legislative efforts, including Virginia’s HB 1624, broad and restrictive mandates often introduce new problems without solving the core issues. Similar “addictive feed” laws have already been struck down or enjoined in multiple states, including Arkansas, Ohio, and California.
Impact on Small and Emerging Platforms
Platforms at every size are implementing child-safety measures. However, imposing complex verification or feed-remodeling requirements could create barriers for smaller innovators and nonprofits, limiting consumer choice and competition.
Ambiguous Enforcement & Liability
It is unclear how the law would be enforced, or what constitutes sufficient methods for verifying user age. Without clear safe harbors or guidelines, well-intentioned businesses face uncertainty and litigation risk, hampering investment in new safety tools.
4. A Tested Alternative: The App Store Approach
Rather than pursue an approach that is constitutionally vulnerable, we respectfully urge the Legislature to consider pivoting HB 227 toward an app store-level approach modeled on Alabama’s HB 161 and the federal App Store Accountability Act (ASAA). This model addresses the same concerns that animate HB 227, protecting minors from harmful online content, while avoiding the privacy, constitutional, and enforcement pitfalls described above.
This approach is gaining strong bipartisan momentum. Alabama’s HB 161 passed the legislature unanimously and is on the Governor’s desk. The federal ASAA (S. 1586 / H.R. 3149) remains under active consideration in Congress and has been endorsed by a broad coalition including the America First Policy Institute, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, the Institute for Family Studies, and major technology companies. Legislation has been introduced or is active in over a dozen states this session.
The app store approach offers several key advantages over the addictive feed model:
App Store Is the Correct Level to Regulate
By regulating at the app store level, all companies have a level playing field and consistent policy guidance. This allows companies to innovate rather than pursuing different, fragmented policies related to minors. It is important to establish a universal standard so that applications are not pursuing different policies related to minors.
App Store Regulation Protects Minors
By addressing protections at the point of download, policymakers can ensure minors are never exposed to content or applications intended for adults, preventing harm before it occurs rather than attempting to manage it after the fact.
Puts Parents in Control
The app store model puts parents in control. Families will have different preferences with regard to the use of social media, and the goal of public policy should be to empower families, not bureaucrats. An overwhelming 87% of voters believe parents should determine what content minors engage with online, not the government.
Avoids the Constitutional and Privacy Problems of HB 227
Because the app store approach relies on contract law (parental consent for minors) rather than content-based restrictions, it avoids the First Amendment vulnerabilities that have affected similar legislation in other states. It also centralizes age verification in a single step rather than requiring invasive data collection by every individual platform.
5. National Polling Supports This Approach
Rainey Center polling of 1,247 likely voters confirms that the app store approach aligns with voter preferences:
Opposition to Bans
Only 20% of voters favor government bans on access to social media. Voters reject heavy-handed government intervention.
Parents Should Be in Charge
An overwhelming 87% of voters believe parents should determine what content minors engage with online, not the government (93% Republicans, 82% Democrats, 85% Independents).
Voters Prefer a Streamlined Solution
71% prefer verifying age once through an app store (like Apple or Google) rather than uploading sensitive ID documents to every individual website (13%).
Strong Bipartisan Support
79% of voters support the App Store Accountability Act (83% Republican, 78% Democrat, 74% Independent).
Full polling available at:
raineycenter.org/polling/empowering-parents-voters-support-app-store-accountability
6. Conclusion
We commend the sponsors of HB 227 for their commitment to protecting Kentucky’s children online. However, the addictive feed approach risks violating the First Amendment, increasing invasive data collection, and facing immediate legal challenge, as similar laws have in other states.
We respectfully urge the Legislature to pivot HB 227 toward an app store-level model that achieves the same protective goals while empowering parents, preserving constitutional rights, and protecting user privacy. At Rainey Center Freedom Project, we believe that government should put parents in control of minor social media use, and the app store approach does exactly that.
We look forward to working with the Kentucky Legislature on this important issue and stand ready to provide additional insights or data to aid your review.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Hunt, CEO
Rainey Center Freedom Project
