To: Members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
From: National Taxpayers Union
Date: August 4, 2026
Subject: NTU’s views on the August 5th Markup
I. Introduction
On behalf of National Taxpayers Union (NTU), the nation’s oldest taxpayer advocacy organization, I write to provide our views on three pieces of legislation scheduled for consideration before the Committee. NTU appreciates the Committee’s continued efforts to improve online safety for minors and recognizes the importance of developing effective and durable policy solutions in this area. At the same time, several aspects of the bills under consideration raise questions about how the proposed frameworks would operate in practice, particularly with respect to privacy implications, compliance expectations, and implementation challenges across different types of online services. As such, we urge you to reject S. 1748, S. 4407, and S. 4199.
II. Legislation NTU Opposes
S. 1748, the Kids Online Safety Act – Oppose. This bipartisan legislation, sponsored by Sen. Blackburn (R-TN), has a well intentioned goal of protecting children online but it greatly expands the role of government in parents’ lives. While it improves upon previous drafts by not directly mandating age verification, it does, however, propose a study to evaluate “the most technologically feasible methods and options for developing systems to verify age at the device or operating system level.” At a time when intrusive age verification systems are gaining popularity at the state level, the language of Section 107 could potentially create a backdoor through which regulators might implement an invasive age verification requirement.
The bill’s sponsors, such as Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), emphasize that it “does not impose age verification requirements or require platforms to collect more data about users (government IDs or otherwise).” Others might highlight the growing availability of alternative means of age verification, including credit cards, cell phone registration, or facial age estimation techniques. However, these methods often carry privacy and security risks of their own, especially depending on how they are implemented. Moreover, these age-verification methods would also apply to all users—not just those below the statutory minimum age of 17.
Furthermore, even with less intrusive (and potentially less accurate) forms of identity verification, businesses would have an incentive to minimize potential risks and avoid costly identity verification systems by asking all users for government-issued identification. At a time when Congress has not established a federal privacy law and a growing share of Americans are worried about data misuse and cyberattacks, the proposed legislation could add new vulnerabilities for the sensitive personal data of U.S. adults and youth—from biometric data to financial information and Social Security numbers.
S. 1748 creates a two-tier system: platforms averaging fewer than 10 million monthly active users get 21 days to respond and no audit requirement, while larger platforms face 10-day responses and audits. This would create a new compliance burden and thereby increase regulatory costs that businesses would have to navigate.
Perhaps most concerning is Section 102 which requires providers of covered platforms to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce reasonable policies, practices, and procedures intended to address certain harms to minors. This new “Duty of Care” requirement identifies several categories of harm, including serious threats of physical violence affecting a minor’s major life activities, sexual abuse and exploitation, the distribution, sale, and consumption of substances such as narcotics, tobacco, cannabis, alcohol, or gambling products in ways that involve minors, and financial harm resulting from deceptive practices. This provision would be difficult for platforms to enforce for a younger audience and could thereby make them liable for damages.
S. 4407 / S. 4199, the CHATBOT Act and the Youth AI Act – Oppose. These two separate pieces of legislation, sponsored by Chairman Cruz (R-TX), and Sen. Markey (D-MA) would impose new requirements on chatbot users under 18, require chatbot services to be built around family accounts, and lock default settings into their most restrictive privacy and safety levels. While well-intended, in practice, this approach raises significant privacy concerns for all users, not just those under the age of 18. While the text does not mandate the collection of government IDs for age verification, businesses may require new accounts to do so as fear of falling out of compliance will likely leave companies with no other choice since the monetary penalties established under this proposal are steep. With artificial intelligence and chatbots being relatively new technologies, burdensome federal mandates on AI developers could stifle innovation, limit competition, and create significant compliance costs for emerging technologies. Rather than prescribing rigid design and operational requirements, policymakers should pursue a flexible, risk-based approach that protects consumers without undermining free expression, privacy, or the continued development of beneficial AI tools.
III. Conclusion
Should you have any questions about the recommendations in this memo, please do not hesitate to reach out to Thomas Aiello (taiello@ntu.org).