A new legislative proposal in the North Carolina House of Representatives aims to ban children under the age of 14 from using social media and to establish age verification for specific websites—but in a manner distinct from other age-verification regulations.

House Bill 301, referred to as the *Social Media Protections for Minors Act*, was presented last Wednesday and has completed its initial reading, as reported by *WFMY News 2*. The bill is now set to proceed to a committee for further assessment.

In a manner akin to Australia’s recent social media limitations for minors under 16, this legislation would disallow children under 14 from setting up accounts on platforms that fulfill certain criteria—such as having at least 10% of daily active users under 16 and featuring “addictive” characteristics like indefinite scrolling. Teens who are 14 and 15 would be permitted to create accounts only with parental consent, though the bill does not clarify how this approval would be authenticated.

Furthermore, HB 301 suggests “anonymous” or conventional age verification for users trying to access websites where a minimum of one-third of the content is deemed “harmful to minors.” This phrasing refers to the Supreme Court case *Ginsberg v. New York*, which determined that material not classified as obscene (and thus protected by the First Amendment) could still be regarded as detrimental to minors.

Generally, age-verification laws concentrate on limiting access to explicit material. This element of HB 301 is consistent with current laws requiring users to confirm their age—often via digital identification or facial recognition—prior to entering adult websites.

Nevertheless, in contrast to other U.S. age-verification regulations, including North Carolina’s existing law, this bill establishes the minimum access age at 16 instead of 18. This change is in line with North Carolina’s legal age of consent, which is also set at 16.

In January, the Supreme Court reviewed arguments pertaining to age-verification laws in the case *Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton*, with a decision anticipated this summer. In the meantime, a recent study indicates that such laws may not effectively stop minors from reaching explicit content, as they can still access non-compliant websites or circumvent restrictions using VPNs.