According to the US political news website Politico, the social media giant Meta is actively operating in the California State Assembly, trying to obtain a "safe harbor" clause for itself in a legislation targeting "platform endangerment of children", so as to avoid or reduce the liability for large fines in related lawsuits.
According to people familiar with the matter, Meta's lobbyists have recently contacted California Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Tom Umberg, a Democratic congressman from Santa Ana, and submitted a draft amendment text, proposing to add a "safe harbor" mechanism to the existing bill AB 2 to provide an exemption from penalties for social platforms that meet specific child safety protection requirements. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the negotiations are private.
AB 2 was proposed by California Representative Josh Lowenthal, also a Democrat. The core content is that if social platforms are found to cause harm to minors due to "negligent product design," they can be fined up to $1 million per child. The bill will be submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee led by Eomberg for hearings in the near future, becoming a new focus in the game between technology companies and lawmakers over "online protection of minors."
Meta's move comes as it faces hundreds of related lawsuits across the United States. It is accused of failing to effectively protect the safety of underage users. The platform design and algorithm mechanism are accused of inducing serious consequences such as addiction, depression and even suicide among teenagers. Politico pointed out that while Meta is facing a wave of product safety lawsuits and pressure from new regulations on the online protection of minors around the world, it is stepping up its lobbying methods to influence the direction of legislation. The proposed revised rules are its latest strategy.
According to the disclosure, the amendment proposed by Meta will set up a "list of compliance conditions" for social platforms: as long as the company turns on a full set of safety settings for minors by default, it will be exempt from the higher fine limit stipulated in AB 2 in "child endangerment" cases. These default settings include: turning off autoplay, limiting the sharing of geolocation data, silencing notifications at night, preventing unknown adults from sending private messages directly to minors, making underage users’ profiles private, and blocking the display of explicit or inappropriate content to minors.
At the same time, if the platform wants to enjoy a "safe harbor", it must also provide parents with a series of management tools, such as: limiting the duration of children's screen use, hiding the public visibility of children's accounts, viewing the objects their children interact with on the platform, and conveniently reporting inappropriate behavior. These requirements ostensibly strengthen the technical responsibilities of platforms in protecting minors, but they also leave room for qualified platforms to mitigate or avoid heavy penalties in litigation.
If the above amendments are adopted by legislators, social platforms including Meta, Google, TikTok and Snap may significantly reduce the amount of compensation they face in "child endangerment" lawsuits in related cases tried in California in the future. At present, many companies have been sued by parents and young users for allegedly indulging youth addiction and other problems. In a landmark case in Los Angeles in March this year, a jury ruled that Meta and YouTube parent company Google were liable, awarding a total compensation of US$6 million.
Regarding the details of the amendment that are of concern to the outside world, California Senator Umberg declined to comment, and a Meta spokesperson also did not respond. But just last week, a Reuters report revealed that Meta has begun lobbying the U.S. Congress at the federal level, hoping to obtain legal immunity for itself from "child endangerment" charges nationwide.
Politico also recalled that this is not the first time Meta has adopted similar strategies in California. Nearly two years ago, Lowenthal proposed a bill with almost the same content as AB 2, which was strongly opposed by the technology company camp. At that time, Meta pushed for an amended text that significantly weakened the effectiveness of the bill. The relevant wording was highly similar to the "safe harbor" plan it proposed this time. Lowenthal ultimately chose to withdraw the bill.
Lobbying groups representing technology industry interests such as TechNet and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) have also publicly opposed AB 2 on the grounds that the bill would infringe on the platforms’ First Amendment rights to free speech. As giants represented by Meta take action intensively at the state and federal levels, the political and legal battle surrounding the issue of "whether platforms should bear higher legal liability for minors' physical and mental harm" is reaching a new climax.