The Compliance Officer's Guide to Congressional Internet Regulation: Navigating 20+ Bills That Will Transform Your Compliance Obligations
Executive Summary for Compliance Professionals
As Chief Compliance Officers, CISOs, Data Protection Officers, and Risk Management professionals, you need to understand that the current wave of internet regulation represents the most significant shift in compliance obligations since GDPR. Congressional action on nearly 20 bills—including KOSA, the App Store Accountability Act, the SCREEN Act, and Section 230 reforms—will fundamentally alter your organization's legal landscape, regardless of political outcomes.
Critical Compliance Reality: These are bipartisan efforts with support from both parties. Your compliance strategy cannot assume one political faction will protect your organization. Both sides are implementing censorship and surveillance infrastructure under different justifications—child safety, national security, civil rights enforcement—but with identical compliance burdens for your organization.
Immediate Action Required: Organizations operating digital platforms, mobile applications, social media services, or any user-generated content systems must begin compliance planning now. Multiple bills are being fast-tracked, state laws are already in effect (Texas: January 1, 2026), and enforcement mechanisms include both government penalties and private rights of action that create class action exposure.
My Privacy Blog
This guide provides compliance professionals with actionable intelligence on regulatory requirements, implementation timelines, risk assessment frameworks, and strategic recommendations for navigating this complex legislative environment.
Understanding the Legislative Landscape: Bills That Impact Your Compliance Program
The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA): Duty of Care and State-Level Enforcement
Status: Passed Senate 91-3 (July 2024), reintroduced with amendments (May 2025), awaiting House action
Compliance Impact: HIGH - Creates affirmative obligations to prevent harm to minors with vague definitions and state-level enforcement
Key Provisions Affecting Compliance:
- Duty of Care Standard: Platforms must take "reasonable measures in its design and operation" to prevent and mitigate specified harms to minors, including:
- Mental health disorders (anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance abuse, suicidal behaviors)
- Patterns of compulsive usage
- Online bullying, harassment, and abuse
- Sexual exploitation and abuse
- Exposure to content promoting self-harm, suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, or other matters that pose a risk to physical or mental health
- Enforcement Mechanisms:
- Federal Trade Commission enforcement authority
- State Attorney General enforcement (creating 50+ different interpretation risks)
- Penalties for violations (not yet specified but likely substantial given FTC authority)
- Safeguards Requirements:
- Default strongest privacy settings for minors
- Options to disable addictive product features
- Ability to opt out of algorithmic recommendations
- Readily accessible tools to delete accounts and data
Compliance Hub
Compliance Challenges:
Definitional Ambiguity: Terms like "compulsive usage," "anxiety," and "mental health disorders" lack clinical consensus or legal precedent. This creates impossible compliance standards where platforms must predict psychological harm.
Multi-Jurisdictional Interpretation: With state AG enforcement, your organization faces 50+ different interpretations of "reasonable measures" and "harmful content." What satisfies enforcement in California may trigger prosecution in Texas and vice versa.
Content Moderation Liability: The duty of care creates affirmative obligations to remove or restrict content. Over-compliance leads to censorship concerns and user backlash. Under-compliance creates enforcement risk. There is no safe harbor.
Political Weaponization: Conservative groups including The Heritage Foundation have explicitly stated they support KOSA to censor LGBTQ+ content. Senator Marsha Blackburn said the bill should prioritize "protecting minor children from the transgender [sic] in this culture." Progressive enforcement may target different content categories. Your content moderation decisions will be second-guessed through a political lens regardless of good faith efforts.
Read more: YouTube's AI Age Verification: The Global Push for Online Control - Analysis of KOSA's enforcement mechanisms and political motivations
Compliance Recommendations:
- Conduct Harm Assessment Audits: Document your analysis of potential harms on your platform, even if KOSA doesn't pass. This creates defensible positions for future litigation.
- Implement Tiered Controls: Create technical architectures that allow rapid deployment of content restrictions, age-gating, and algorithmic modifications without full platform redesigns.
- Build State-Specific Enforcement Tracking: Monitor state AG priorities and public statements to predict enforcement trends. Create compliance matrices showing how different state interpretations affect your operations.
- Document Reasonable Measures: Create detailed records of design decisions, content moderation policies, and user protection features. "Reasonable measures" will be interpreted retrospectively—your documentation is your defense.
- Prepare for Over-Removal Litigation: Users will sue for wrongful content removal. Platforms must balance duty of care enforcement against First Amendment and breach of contract claims.
The App Store Accountability Act: Universal Age Verification Infrastructure
Status: Multiple state versions enacted (Texas: Jan 1, 2026; Utah: May 7, 2026; Louisiana: July 1, 2026), federal bills pending in 119th Congress
Compliance Impact: CRITICAL - Requires fundamental restructuring of app distribution, user authentication, and parental consent workflows
