State social media restrictions move forward as lawsuits expected

Editor’s note: This story was originally published in the February 27, 2026 issue of Indiana Education Insight. The Governor has since signed HEA 1408 into law. 

Motivated by tragedies linked to online interactions – but bracing for the lawsuits that have toppled similar laws nationwide – Indiana leaders press ahead with new limits on youth social media use.

And there are looming concerns that the proposal does not go far enough (likely to avoid getting blocked by the courts), with questions over whether platforms most popular among children, such as Snapchat, Roblox, and Discord, are even covered in the law.

Social media restriction language once in SB 199, an omnibus Indiana Department of Education agency bill, is now found in HB 1408 – added in the final days of session as the Senate ruled the latest version of the restrictions was no longer germane to SB 199 . . . even though the concept originated in that bill. Both the House and Senate adopted the conference committee report for HB 1408 Thursday afternoon.

The language in the HB 1408 conference committee report reverts to what passed the House Committee on Education, requiring social media platforms to verify users’ ages through “commercially reasonable” methods and obtain parental consent before anyone under 15 can create an account. The measure mainly targets “addictive algorithms.” Even with consent, minors would be shielded from direct messages from strangers, barred from receiving targeted advertising, and could face additional parental controls. The policy is aimed at large, billion-dollar platforms that deploy engagement-driving features to keep minors online.

State leaders are expecting these restrictions to face court challenges over potential First Amendment violations, and that seems to be all but guaranteed if we use other states’ situations as a guide. Still, lawmakers, the Governor, and the Indiana Department of Education are determined to push this law through for the well-being of Hoosier teens and children.

As Rep. Ed DeLaney (D) of Indianapolis put it during HB 1408’s conference committee meeting on Tuesday, he is “inclined to support this” as an “experiment” and part of the broader process of testing legislation through the courts.

Indiana finds itself positioned within a fast-moving national landscape where concerns over youth mental health collide with First Amendment challenges and aggressive industry lobbying.

Indiana Joins a Growing National Policy Movement

Nationwide, states are experimenting with a patchwork of social-media restrictions aimed at curbing mental-health harms among minors. Eight states, among them Florida, California, and Tennessee, now require parental consent or ban minors outright from creating accounts. Nebraska enacted one of the strictest measures in the country last year, demanding parental approval for all minors under 18.

Other states, including California, New York, Arkansas, and Connecticut, are targeting algorithmic design features that encourage compulsive use. Still others have taken softer approaches: North Carolina now requires social media health courses for students, while Georgia and Massachusetts created commissions to study youth online habits.

Indiana’s bill fits most squarely into the “account verification and algorithm restriction” category – a type of law increasingly popular but still legally precarious.

Recall that the original social media language in SB 199 was much more restrictive, outright banning children under 13 from holding any social media accounts. The Senate was hesitant to move forward, so the policy was stripped out over concerns with legal challenges and parental rights.

But it came to the forefront again with the death of Fishers teen Hailey Buzbee, and legislators feeling the need to react quickly to calls for “Hailey’s Law” place further restrictions on minors’ access to social media platforms.

Her father, Beau Buzbee, told lawmakers the decisions they make “have the power to save children’s lives.” Teenagers testifying in favor echoed national research linking social-media use to anxiety, comparison, and distorted self-worth. Educators, parents, and teens themselves argued during committee hearings that addictive platform features – recommendation algorithms, infinite scroll, and constant notifications – feed compulsive use.

The legislation is additionally propped up by Governor Mike Braun (R), who called for its passage earlier this month following the death of Buzbee.

Secretary of Education Katie Jenner, from the start of session, has fiercely advocated for youth social media restrictions as an educator and a parent. She has conveyed the message that she is ready to go toe-to-toe with the social media companies who are expected to fight this policy in court should it become law.

Further reaffirming the commitment, IDOE, the Friday before the final week of session, posted a video on YouTube with Dr. Jenner again advocating for social media restrictions for minors.

In the video, titled “Ending the Social Experiment on Kids,” Dr. Jenner urges action, asserting that an “entire generation of Hoosier children is bearing the weight of the largest unregulated experiment ever conducted on young minds.” Her comments are supplemented with public testimony from the House Education Committee, including Beau Buzbee’s remarks.

Most States Are Getting Sued . . . and Often Losing

The reality is that HB 1408 will likely face a legal challenge not long after it is signed into law.

Indiana’s strategy mirrors Florida’s recent attempt to withstand court scrutiny, after a wave of similar laws were struck down.

Federal judges have permanently blocked social media restrictions in Arkansas and Ohio and temporarily halted laws in California, Florida, and Georgia. Courts have repeatedly held that age-verification mandates burden access to speech protected by the First Amendment.

Even Mississippi’s law, one of the few to take effect, faces an uncertain future. In a 2025 emergency docket decision, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to block a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that allowed the law to remain in place while legal challenges proceed. In a concurring opinion allowing it to stand temporarily, Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned that challengers are “likely to succeed” on constitutional grounds.

The legal landscape is particularly murky because research on social media harm remains young and at times inconclusive.

While states argue they are acting to prevent mental health crises, courts have not been willing to equate social media risks with “obscenity,” where age gating has historically been upheld.

Also important to keep in mind within the national landscape: the dozens of lawsuits pending now against major social media platforms, including Meta, TikTok, and Snapchat, over mental health effects on young people.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified last week in a landmark Los Angeles trial, acknowledging the difficulty of enforcing age limits on Instagram and conceding that millions of users lie about their age. The high-profile case, brought by a 20-year-old woman who says she was harmed by Instagram and YouTube, is one of thousands of similar lawsuits pending nationally.

The Washington Post reports Zuckerberg defended Meta’s teen-safety features, but faced pointed questions about internal documents showing employees long had concerns about inadequate age enforcement and minors’ exposure to harmful content. The trial could test whether tech giants eventually face major financial liability.

In the conference committee meeting for HB 1408, Rep. DeLaney, an attorney, outlined most of these legal concerns, as we mentioned.

He began with his strong First Amendment concerns and an expectation that the bill will “lead to a lot of litigation.” He additionally noted worries about the balance between state authority and family responsibility, noting his belief that “young people are different and deserve protection from their family more than from the state,” which makes him uneasy about “a lot of state protection here.”

Because of the expected court tie-ups, DeLaney cautioned that no Hoosier child is likely to be protected by the bill anytime soon, given the inevitable injunctions and federal actions that will follow.

He acknowledged this is part of the process, though, “One of the ways we solve problems in this country is we make a bunch of attempts. We send them through the courts, and we knock some out. So, here we go.” DeLaney added, “… But don’t tell anybody, please, that any Hoosier kid is going to be protected by this bill for at least several years between the injunctions and the federal action.”

He noted as well that Indiana’s approach could conflict with federal policy, particularly as the U.S. government pushes back on European filtering requirements.

Does This Do Enough?

Another area of concern we’ve heard is that the bill’s reach remains uneven.

The language focuses on “addictive algorithms,” raising questions about whether major platforms favored by minors would even be covered. The bill defines a “social media provider” narrowly, using a multi-part test that captures only large, algorithm-driven platforms with addictive design features and significant youth engagement.

Under the definition, a platform qualifies as a social media provider if it:

  • Primarily allows users to upload content or view content from other users.
  • Has a substantial youth user base – at least 10% of its daily active users are under 16 and spend an average of two hours or more per day on the platform, measured over the past year (or past month for newer apps).
  • Uses algorithms to analyze user data and select or recommend content.
  • Contains at least one “addictive” feature, such as infinite scroll, seamless pages with no stopping point, public reaction metrics (likes, shares), autoplay video, or live streaming.

Is operated by a company generating at least $1 billion in global revenue over any of the past three years (including parent, subsidiary, or affiliate companies).

The bill also specifies what does not count as a social media provider:

– Email-only or private direct-messaging services that don’t publicly display content.

– Device manufacturers or app stores.

– Telecommunications or communications service providers.

Lawmakers have noted uncertainty over apps such as Snapchat – one of the platforms involved in Hailey Buzbee’s case – and similar ambiguity surrounds video-game-based platforms and online chatrooms widely used by children, including Roblox and Discord. Because these platforms do not function as traditional algorithm-driven social media feeds, they may fall outside the bill’s regulatory scope, despite being central to many minors’ daily online interactions.

When asked on the House floor last week if Snapchat could fall under the policy, House Education Chair Bob Behning (R) of Indianapolis explained he was unsure whether Snapchat qualifies under the bill’s definitions.

Similarly, in the conference committee meeting on HB 1408 Tuesday, Rep. Tonya Pfaff (D) of Terre Haute, a retired educator, again pressed about Snapchat.

“Which platforms are you specifically targeting?” Rep. Pfaff asked. “Because I obviously, TikTok, but, you know, I’m very concerned about Snapchat. And we had this discussion on the floor, and I don’t think it’s in here.”

Rep. Joanna King (R) of Middlebury, one of the key crafters of this social media language, responded that they are targeting “platforms that are using addictive measures to keep kids on their platforms.”

Note how the bill’s drafters have largely avoided publicly naming any specific social media company, so as to not run into even more legal troubles for targeting certain companies. That’s also why the language was drafted as it is, but it’s clear what companies would fall under the policy for the most part.

HB 1408 passed out of the House unanimously for a final time Thursday and is awaiting action in the Senate, with anticipated adjournment sine die Friday.