Mounting pressure to regulate children’s use of technology in the United States raises the question: Is childproofing the internet constitutional?

In response to significant political pressure stemming from alarming revelations about youth experience with digital technologies, a wave of state laws have recently passed across the U.S. They address a variety of online harms affecting children, ranging from exposure to pornography and risky content to manipulative design and social media access.

Most of the newly passed state laws have already been challenged, and those challenges are working their way up through the appeals process of the court system. In the 2024-25 term, the U.S. Supreme Court will review the constitutionality of a Texas law that obligates porn sites to block underage users in the case Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton.

The controversy found its way to the highest court after a federal district court determined that the law violated the First Amendment but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court decision. The 5th Circuit ruling compared the new law with those banning the sale of pornography magazines to minors in the 1960s, which were ruled constitutional.

While the court considers the Texas law, the U.S. House will be considering the Kids Online Safety Act, known as KOSA, and the Children and Teens Online Privacy Protection Act, referred to as COPPA 2.0, because it updates the 1998 Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, COPPA. KOSA addresses addictive design features and parental controls, and COPPA limits data collection and use. Senate leaders merged the two into KOSPA, which passed 91-3.

Age-gating

All these laws demand that platforms treat children differently from adults, and so require platforms to know who is a child and who is an adult. This practice is referred to as age-gating and includes a few methods.

The old COPPA 1.0 added restrictions, responsibilities and liability for sites directed at kids or sites that had knowledge a user was under 13. Most sites avoid the law’s restrictions and requirements by simply including language in their terms of service forbidding those under 13 from creating an account. Others, like Facebook, eventually went further, asking the user to input their age or date of birth. Kids long ago learned to circumvent the virtually meaningless barrier.

The new wave of laws requires more, using one of two age-gating options: inference and verification. To infer age, the platforms make a good guess by using data generated by the user, either through biometric scans of the face or voice or analysis of the data troves the platforms already collect for targeted advertising. Age verification involves relying on evidence already vetted by another institution such as a government ID or credit card.

While the inference method provokes significant privacy concerns, age-gating advocates argue that age verification at the operating system or browser level is effective and doesn’t burden users or put their privacy at risk.

The last time the constitutionality of age-gating the internet came before the Supreme Court, the law did not survive. In 1997, the Supreme Court in Reno v. ACLU invalidated provisions of the Communications Decency Act enacted to protect children from exposure to explicit material online because they lacked the precision required to narrowly target unprotected speech. Congress made some adjustments and tried again with the Children’s Online Protection Act, not to be confused with COPPA, which ultimately failed as well but under a highly fractured court.

3 questions

While the constitutional analysis, the technology and the associated research are fairly complex, the outcome depends on answers to three main questions.

To limit sharing or accessing content, the government needs to have a good reason. So, the first question to ask is whether the harms to kids are really that bad and whether the challenged law mitigates the harms. Laws sometimes fail this test.

Like in 2011, when the Supreme Court scuttled California’s attempt to prohibit the sale of violent video games to minors, Utah’s efforts to limit children’s access to social media recently stalled after the government could not convince the district court that a compelling link exists between youth mental health problems and social media.

The second question is whether restrictions and obligations related to children place burdens on speakers and seekers who have legitimate rights to share and access information freely. While the 5th Circuit maneuvered around this question by relying on the constitutionality of laws that require showing an ID to access offline pornography, other courts have gotten technical. For instance, Arkansas’s Social Media Safety Act did not survive because the court determined adults would be deterred from creating accounts if it involved producing an ID or biometric scans.

This question may come down to not only the technical reality or potential of age-gating but also user experience research.

The third question is whether alternatives, namely parental controls, work better and leave adult access unhindered. Although some parents and policymakers insist parental controls have not worked to protect children, lower courts considering the new wave of age-gating have found that parental controls remain superior options for addressing online harms to children, just like the Supreme Court did two decades ago.

Nobody knows how the Supreme Court will answer these three questions this time around. So much has changed. The court has changed, the technology has changed, the research has changed, childhood has changed. If age-gating laws are upheld as constitutional, more big changes are likely to follow.

Meg Leta Jones, Associate Professor of Technology Law & Policy, Georgetown University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Though cynics may question her motives, Kamala Harris’ recent call to ban price gouging on groceries has received a lot of attention – and for good reason.

The cost of food has been a big concern for Americans since the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, with U.S. food prices rising 25% between 2019 and 2023. While U.S. food inflation slowed considerably in 2024, grocery prices are still up from prepandemic numbers.

Price hikes like this are as painful as they are aggravating, and they can have real effects on both household spending and the broader economy. So it’s not surprising that the topic is coming up on the campaign trail.

But oftentimes, complexity can get lost amid the politicking. Here, economic history – and economic historians like me – can provide some context.

How Americans spend their food dollars

For starters, despite the run-up in food prices in the U.S., there’s little evidence of price gouging in the grocery industry today.

“Price gouging” is notoriously difficult to define, but the term is usually invoked after a supply or demand shock of some kind, when sellers are said to take advantage and jack up prices, particularly for basics such as food or gasoline. Concern over “gouging” goes way back – in some ways, it can be seen as an outgrowth of medieval Christian injunctions against mercantile greed.

Although many states have laws on the books against price gouging, such laws have proved difficult to enforce. In the case of the U.S. grocery industry, profit margins — traditionally razor-thin at about 1% or 2% — remain small even today.

What’s more, it’s important to note that food prices in the U.S. — relatively speaking — are the cheapest in the world, and have been for a long time. This is the case whether measured in terms of disposable personal income or in terms of percentage of household expenditures.

For example, U.S. Department of Agriculture data shows that in 2023 — the most recent year for which data are available — Americans spent about 11.2% of their disposable personal income – or income after taxes – on food. That was unchanged from 2022.

This includes expenditures for both food at home — generally purchased at supermarkets and other grocery stores — and food purchased “away” at restaurants and the like. Interestingly, the “away” component has been growing as a proportion of total food spending since the onset of COVID-19.

Grocery prices around the world

No one likes to pay more for food, but a little comparative data can reduce one’s sense of victimization, if not alleviate the pocketbook pain.

Cross-national data compiled by the USDA shows that in 2022, Americans spent less on food as a proportion of total consumer expenditures than people in any other country. People in many other nations spent two, three or four times as much in percentage terms, and sometimes even more.

The differences were greatest between the U.S. and low-income countries in South Asia and Africa – Bangladesh, Myanmar and Ethiopia, for example – but were also quite sizable between the U.S. and middle-income countries such as Argentina, Brazil, China, Costa Rica and Mexico.

These differences aren’t altogether surprising. Why not? Because as the German statistician Ernst Engel first noted in the middle of the 19th century, as family or household income increases, the proportion of the total spent on food declines. After all, you can only eat so much no matter how rich you are.

Scholars have found that Engel’s insight still applies in the contemporary world, which provides context for the sharp distinctions between low-income and middle-income countries and the U.S.

That said, however, there are big differences between the U.S. and other high-income countries such as Japan, Sweden, Norway, France and Italy, with the U.S. percentage spent on food considerably lower than in any of these other rich countries. This is because economies of scale are more important in American agriculture, among other reasons.

To be sure, if so inclined, one can point to certain negative environmental externalities in American food production and question the ways animals and laborers are treated in the American food system, which prizes efficiency — or at least low prices — above all else.

But food that is dirt cheap in comparative terms, even in a time of rising food prices, is a problem virtually every other nation in the world would love to have.

Peter A. Coclanis, Professor of History; Director of the Global Research Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.