Senate Children and Families Committee, February 17, 2026 Video: https://vimeo.com/1165757419 (a timestamp t plays at https://vimeo.com/1165757419#t=s) Page: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-02-17/senate-children-and-families This is a machine transcript of the General Assembly's video, made by a speech-recognition model. It is not an official record and can mishear words, names, and numbers. Speakers are not identified. The video is the record: every timestamp links to the moment it plays. [0:04:42] Welcome to the Children and Families Committee. Sorry we're running a bit late. Our session ran over, and we have a couple of people that are on the way. Uh, but because this bill is a hearing only, we don't need a quorum to get started. So we've got a whole bunch of people that wanna speak to the bill, uh, on Zoom and live. So with that, um, Senator Payne, would you open us in prayer? [0:05:07] Sure. Did you pray me, pray with me? Dear Heavenly Father Lord, we just thank you so much for this day. Thank you for all your many blessings. Thank you for the air that fills our lungs. It only comes with purpose in you, in your will, in your plan, and in your great plan, and in your desire for us. Lord, we just ask you to lead us and guide us in all things before us today, and let all things before us today represent your interest, and, and, and we would represent your interest in the way we judge. Lord, we just thank you and appreciate you so much. For it's in Jesus' name we pray, amen. [0:05:40] Thank you, Senator. And committee members, you will-- you probably have already noticed that you have a few letters about the bill in your folder that you can review. And with that, I'm gonna ask Senator Cowsert to go ahead and present the bill, and then we'll get started with our testimony. [0:05:59] Thank you, Madam Chairman. I thought I might just give a more of a, um, broad overview rather than getting too detailed into the specifics, but I'm more than happy to, to answer any specific questions. Uh, I have noticed that this is a issue of concern, uh, to all Americans, and Georgians, and many members of the legislature to keep age-inappropriate materials away from minors without the par- parent's consent. And that's what we're trying to do here, is to protect minors from, uh, inappropriate materials that are connected to apps, as we call 'em, different applications, and it's r- it's limited to those that are downloaded on a cell phone device. [0:06:43] This isn't other types, but it's, uh, it's aimed at those. It requires a few things to protect our children. One is that the app store provider, whoever's selling or, or, or pre-installing, uh, these type of applications require age verification to find out what the age of the user is. We have to have that information in order to protect them. It does not require a photo ID or anything like that. [0:07:14] Uh, we, we, we use this, uh, more broad term, a commercially available method reasonably designed to ensure accuracy. And the high-tech people will tell you there are a lot of ways that they can verify the age of a user, let's call it, or whoever's downloading an app. Um, if I was the, uh, czar or the governor or something, I might require a photo ID, but that is a little unwieldy sometimes because the, uh, uh, many times the individual producers of these apps are, are seeking that information. [0:07:50] But we're, we're looking for verification of the age, and then if you're a minor, that you must have parental consent before you can download the app. Yeah. This also, uh, requires a parental consent before doing an in-app purchase. Many of these apps you can purchase new downloads or things, especially some of the games, to make sure that they are also, um, age-appropriate we'd say, I think. [0:08:21] And then if the producer or the developer of the application makes changes, many of these have updates over time, uh, that is a significant change that now makes it ina- age-inappropriate to notify the account holder of that change and get new parental consent to continue with the app. So that's what we're trying to do, is protect minors and give parents more say so in what their kids are accessing through these apps, so that you gotta determine if they're a minor. [0:08:51] If they are, get the parent's consent, uh, before they're allowed to download or upgrade or use that type of app. Uh, that is, um, simple sounding, but it gets complicated. I, I know that there are two other bills before this committee that are attacking the same problem, a little bit different angles. Uh, Senator Hatchett has Senate Bill 343, and Senator Harrell has Senate Bill 495. [0:09:22] I believe they're both here, so I believe you, you all will get to learn quite a bit about, uh, apps and, and what's out there, how we can best protect, uh, minor children from inappropriate material and give the parents control of that process. I have looked at each of those bills, uh, and I don't think they contradict anything in this one. In fact, I think they complement it. Uh, I, I would urge and I hope that we pass all three bills, uh, because they are all addressing the same problem but in different ways. [0:09:55] I will say that, uh, this type of legislation is prevalent around the country right now. I'm very active in the National Conference of State Legislators, and we're seeing these bills in many states. Um, and, and they're, they're not all similar. There, there are, there are many that are kinda model legislation. This particular bill in, in its identical form, uh, has just been signed by the governor of Alabama, I think this morning, in the last day or two, uh, so it is a, a popular approach. [0:10:29] There are other approaches, and I know, uh, various people might have different input. Uh, there's- Some pushback by people p- certainly in the industry I have heard a lot of the, um, app producers or developers or creators and those that offer 'em for sale are concerned about us creating a new private cause of action lawsuits against them. This bill does not provide that. It leaves the enforcement of this up to the attorney general under the Unfair Trade Practices Act, so that's, um, kind of a general overview. [0:11:04] I'm happy to, uh, answer any questions or else let you hear the, the speakers. I, I noticed there are quite a few that have signed up. Oh, I forgot to mention privacy. People are worried if, if you get the, uh, age information on their children, is that gonna be made public so the next thing you know sexual predators are going after them on apps or whatever. Uh, this requires strict confidentiality of that type of data, uh, on, on your children if it's collected by, uh, the, the producers or the app store sales. [0:11:38] Thank you, Senator. We've got a couple questions. Um, Senator Mallow, you were first. [0:11:43] Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Senator, just a, a quick question. Um, as you were, uh, writing this down, uh, and I am like the gentleman from Macon, I might be a street lawyer, uh, what happens if someone downloads the app from the app store and it has parent permission? Does that, [0:12:03] uh, u- uh, um, does that take away the [0:12:10] opportunity or, uh, the effort from the social media company to remove or maintain or remove harmful content from that minor being able to see it? So does that allow for that to take place? You know, can the social media companies, you know, uh, deflect and say, "Oh, well, the parent gave permission and they downloaded from the app store, and there were this list of 20 pages of terms, and in that you said by giving permission, you allow your child to be exposed to whatever is on our whole platform." Um, does that excuse them from maintaining that now if we were to do that at the app store? [0:12:50] It, it doesn't, um, excuse them from, uh, notifying the, the, the adult of the inappropriateness of the material, and they still have to advise or, or notify of changes if they make upgrades or things that add to it. And I think what you're referencing, if you allow them access to your entire database or whatever, I would expect you would have to tell them that you're gonna be doing that. But, uh, unfortunately, it does allow the parent to permit a minor child to access what I'd refer to as an age-inappropriate act, and that is the parent's prerogative. [0:13:29] I, I had a flashback when you were asking that question. When I was, golly, how, I must've been under whatever age it is to go to an R-rated movie, teenager, I w- I went to see Walking Tall, and that was an R-rated movie, I think 'cause the violence and the language. And, um, my parents allowed me to go. I was on vacation with some cousins that were a little older, and I was younger, and they said, "You can go," even though there was a, you know, sort of a ban on that, and that, uh, was probably a violation of the theater. [0:14:03] But here it, it is the parent's prerogative if they want to allow their child to do something that most of us would think was inappropriate. [0:14:11] So further questions. So for example, if, uh, my daughter struggled with anorexia and we allowed her to download a social media app, and because of that app maybe it was listening, and then now targeted ads about anorexia started to show up in her newsfeed, but the social media companies could say, "Oh, well, you gave, uh, permission for her to be on the platform, so we have no control over what ads she sees or, or, or doesn't see," when that may be harmful, um, for a minor to see, is kinda my line of questioning there. [0:14:47] Uh, that particular question they might be allowed to depending on how they share data, but you're still not allowed to s- share the age, uh, information that you collect. In order to enforce this law, you have to ascertain the age of the user, um, but you can't share that with other, you know, whatever anorexia companies there might be. Um, but if you do download and, and use the app, they might be able to share that account information. I'm not 1000% sure of that, but that's the way I understand it would work. [0:15:17] Okay. Thank you, Senator. [0:15:18] Sure. [0:15:19] Senator Harrell? [0:15:21] Uh, yes. Thank you. Um, Senator Cowsert, uh, are you aware that there, the Senate, um, had a study committee- [0:15:28] I am [0:15:28] ... on this topic and- [0:15:29] I, uh, very respectful of the work you did on that committee, uh, along with Senator Still, I believe, right? [0:15:35] That's right. [0:15:35] Yeah. [0:15:35] We were bipartisan co-chairs, so this is a bipartisan issue. Um, w- we heard from quite a number of parents, uh, during the course of that study committee who shared with us, um, how difficult it is to use, um, some of the parental controls that are, that out there. Um, I remember hearing from some that went to a lot of trouble to lock down, um, a, a particular site. [0:16:07] I'm thinking of, like, Roblox right now. Um, went to a lot of trouble to, to lock it down, um, for their child, and it didn't work. Um, so, uh, are you aware that the, the work of the study committee, that we did recommend, um, this bill as part of our official recommendations to the legislature? [0:16:27] I was not aware of that, but I'm- I'm delighted to hear that. Thank you [0:16:30] Yes. Yes, it was one of our recommendations along with o- other things. And, uh, to the, um, uh, to the senator from the second, um, I believe that the other bills that, um, Senator Hatchett and I are working on will address your question. So, um, you remember the, uh, the R-rated movie you went to see. [0:16:49] Of course. [0:16:49] What I remember is, um, that when I went to the library as a child, um, the children's library was downstairs and the adult library was upstairs, and I was issued a card that, um, identified me as, as a child. [0:17:03] Sure. [0:17:03] And I was not allowed upstairs unless my mother was with me. So that is, in essence, the same thing that we are trying to do here. Back in those days, there were no First Amendment concerns about that. There was more of a concern coming from society in general to kind of protect the innocence of, of childhood. And certainly the work of the study committee, that's what we saw, is that there is no protection, um, for the vulnerability of, of, of childhood anymore. [0:17:35] And I, I think that's what you are seeking to do. [0:17:37] Exactly. Yeah, it's so much easier when it was a little kid trying to go upstairs and you could see him. When it's on the, uh, ether, we'll say, you know, in the internet, it's much more harder to, uh, enforce. [0:17:52] Okay, we have a lot of testimony to get through, and we have-- we're gonna lose some committee members for other meetings at 2:30. So, um, let's start with, we have three people on Zoom. And I'm gonna ask everyone to keep your remarks to no more than three minutes. Two would be even better, because we really have a lot of interest in this topic, and we wanna hear everybody. Also, if someone's already made your point, you don't have to make it again. So I'm gonna, uh, start with Caden Rosenblum. [0:18:23] Please introduce yourself. Clearly state your name and who you represent. [0:18:28] Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Caden Rosenblum. I represent the Reason Foundation. We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization offering pro bono consulting on regulatory reform. I'm testifying today in opposition to SB467 for really only a few reasons. Uh, I think you'll hear more from others who are in opposition of this bill about the age verification piece. Um, as we've seen across the country, this bill has been introduced and in two states where it has passed, um, Utah and Texas, the, the bills are in, in current lawsuits because of the age verification piece in the bills. [0:19:04] However, I don't wanna focus too much on that piece because I see an encouraging nugget that I'd like to call the, the committee's attention to. And it's on line, uh, one oh three, and it's for minors whose parents, uh-- Here, let me just read it. "For minors, the method which includes affirmative age attestation by someone who is reasonably believed to be parent or legal guardian." I believe that rather than, than centering these bills around age verification, uh, I, I do believe in the intent of the bills, which is to keep kids out of things their parents don't want them in. [0:19:37] Instead of centering these around age verification or commercially reasonable methods, which includes biometrics or ID scans or what have you, this should be about parental choice in its entirety. So if a parent goes to the App Store and says, "This is the child. Here is the age," and the App Store receives notice that that is a child, then everything else flows through it. And if a parent decides to let their child see things such as the R-rated movie, that is the parent's choice. And so my testimony here today is just to encourage the committee to look to, look to parental age attestation, and not even verification of any of that. [0:20:15] Just if a parent is really involved, they will say so, because parents are responsible. And so my testimony here today is centered around that age attestation piece and encourages this committee to look elsewhere besides age verification or commercially reasonable methods. Uh, instead, just look to parental choice. And I thank you for your time. And if you have any questions, I'll be right here. [0:20:37] Thank you very much. I think we're gonna hold our questions, um, unless somebody has something pressing. Thank you very much. [0:20:44] Thank you. [0:20:45] Next, we're gonna hear from, uh, Tom Mann. There we go. You're up. [0:20:52] Thank you. [0:20:52] There we go. You're up. [0:20:52] Thank you. Appreciate the opportunity to testify virtually today. My name's Tom Mann. I'm here representing the Computer and Communications Industry Association. Uh, we're here today in opposition to Senate Bill 467. CCIA firmly believes that children are entitled to security and privacy online, and our members have designed and developed parental tools to individually tailor younger users' online use, uh, to their developmental needs. For example, various services allow parents to set time limits, provide enhanced privacy protections by default for known child users, and other tools al- allow parents to block specific sites entirely. [0:21:26] And, um, heard from the committee member earlier about maybe there was a, an issue with that. I'm not s- I'm not familiar with that particular case that was referenced with the Roblox situation. But this is one of the reasons why CCIA supports implementing digital citizenship curriculum in schools to not only educate children on proper social media use, but also to help bridge that gap and to help parents learn how they can use the existing mechanisms and tools to protect their children as they see fit. While well-intentioned, age verification mandates inherently require collecting sensitive data of some sort. [0:22:03] Requiring individuals to share sen- sensitive personal information with third parties, including government IDs or biometrics, as has been mentioned, can make recipients prime targets for identity theft, cyberattacks, and other data breaches. And for these reasons, we urge the committee to oppose Senate Bill 467. And again, appreciate the opportunity to, to be with you today virtually. [0:22:24] Thank you very much. Questions from the committee? Okay, thank you. Uh, next is Heather Andrews [0:22:32] Yes. Thank you, Chair, members of the committee. My name is Heather Andrews. I'm a mother of four. I'm a grandmother and advocate for parents' rights and children's online safety, and I'm here today to speak in opposition to Senate Bill 467. This bill will not protect Georgia children. Instead, it creates the appearance of safety while leaving the true source of harm untouched. It forces device manufacturers to check ages at app stores, but any child can open from web browsers, laptops, game consoles, and many other ways. [0:23:03] And instead of a quick workaround, as Instagram and TikTok both function through a browser, the primary danger to children online is not app stores, it's social media platforms that deliberately design addictive, manipulative algorithms that target minors. This bill requires age verification and parental consent, yet once a child enters a platform, this bill imposes no obligation on the platform to stop grooming, sexual exploitation, algorithmic amplification of harmful content, or known child safety risks. [0:23:36] Children remain unprotected the moment they log in. And it's no surprise that companies such as Pornhub and Grindr have supported legislation modeled on this approach. These bills shield platforms from accountability while shifting responsibility elsewhere. And even more concerning, there's the Digital Childhood Alliance that's been funded by Meta to promote these bills across the country, ensuring that the worst actors are never held accountable and can continue profiting while children are harmed. [0:24:06] And Meta's own internal research revealed serious harms to teenage girls, which executives concealed from the public, which there's a lawsuit now in New Mexico that alleges over 100,000 children are sexually harassed daily on Meta platforms. Um, Georgia should apply the same standard. We ask-- We, we shouldn't ask parents to sign more forms. Georgia should apply the same standard to big tech. The bill shifts responsibility away from the platforms causing harm and onto parents, app stores in the state while expanding data collection on Georgia families without requiring design changes that would actually protect children. [0:24:42] Again, like, as stated previously, courts are already rejecting these laws. A federal court blocked Texas. Um, they found it unconstitutional. Arkansas, Utah's legislation is also in litigation, um, that cites First Amendment violations. Georgia should not rush to adopt a framework that is failing in courtrooms acros-across the country. I respectfully urge the committee to reject SB 467 and pursue legislation that holds social media companies directly accountable, bans manipulative design targeting minors, and strengthens parental authority. [0:25:15] Thank you. [0:25:18] Thank you very much. Questions? Okay, that's everyone we have on Zoom. So now we're gonna start with the live testimony. I'd ask you to go to the podium to speak, and the first speaker is Nenia Lenair, and on deck is Mike Griffin. Please introduce yourself clearly s- [0:25:37] Sure. Um, thank you, Chair Kirkpatrick and members of the committee. Also wanna thank, uh, Senator Harl for your work at the study committee this summer. Um, uh, it's a pleasure to be here today and speak, um, on behalf of ACT, the App Association, regarding SB 467. Um, we are a global trade association for small and medium-sized technology companies and independent app developers that drive innovation, job creation, and econ-- e-excuse me, economic growth across the country, including here in the State of Georgia. [0:26:09] ACT and our members share your commitment to protecting children online and empowering parents with meaningful tools to manage their children's digital experiences. We take this responsibility seriously and support policies that genuinely improve online safety without unintentionally undermining privacy, innovation, or legal clarity. However, SB 467, as currently drafted, raises serious concerns, particularly for small app developers that do not build products or services specifically designed for or marketed to children and often do not collect personal data at all. [0:26:40] This can include anything from a calculator app, uh, to a local pizzeria app. First, the bill establishes broad compliance obligations that are difficult in practice, uh, to implement. SB 467 requires age, age verification, parental account linkage, ongoing parental consent, and monitoring of app functionality changes. These requirements apply not just to large social media platforms, but to general audience apps, including those used for retail ordering, education, or basic services. For small developers, building and maintaining these systems is costly, complex, and often unrealistic. [0:27:13] Unlike large mult-multinational companies, small businesses do not have compliance teams or legal departments, and as a result, some developers may limit features, restrict access for Georgia users, um, or leave the market entirely, reducing choice and innovation for Georgia families. Second, um, as it's been referenced, it would likely increase privacy and security risks. Though well-intentioned, the bill pushes companies to collect and store additional sensitive information to verify age and link parents to children, data they otherwise would not need. [0:27:45] More data collection means more risks. Online safety is strengthened when companies collect less personal information, not more. Finally, as also mentioned, and I'll try not to be repetitive here, but it raises legal and constitutional concerns. Consist-conditioning minors' access to lawful digital content on parental consent, regardless of whether its data collect-- data is collected, risks restricted protected speech. And again, as mentioned, in December, um, Texas actually stopped implementation of the law that was supposed to go into effect January first, and there is now an ongoing lawsuit in the State of Utah. [0:28:19] Again, we share your goal of protecting children online. I'm more than happy to connect with you offline and speak to some of the parental controls that are currently in place. There have been many updates. Um, again, the Roblox issue I can't speak to directly, but, um, some of the major app stores have recently rolled out new features for parental controls to make it easier for parents to put those tools into their hands and, uh, make sure their children are safe online Um, we share your goal, again, to protecting children, um, and we believe that is best achieved through these del- device-level parental controls, parental education, transparency, and alignment with existing federal frameworks rather than sweeping mandates that place dis- disproportionate burdens on small businesses. [0:29:00] Again, we stand ready to work with you and protect Georgia families, and thank you for your time and consideration. [0:29:06] Thank you. And if anyone wants to submit anything written for the committee, you can send it to us, and we'll- [0:29:13] Great [0:29:13] ... distribute it to the committee. [0:29:14] There was a coalition letter that we sent, um, just this morning, um- [0:29:17] Okay [0:29:17] ... which featured ourselves and, yeah, so a lot of the points are in there as well. Thank you. [0:29:21] Thank you. Okay, Mike G- Griffin? [0:29:28] Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Mike Griffin. I'm the public affairs representative with Georgia Baptist Mission Board, and as you probably have heard before, we represent up to 10% of the population, uh, 1.4 million Georgians and over 3,400 churches. I cover three areas of ministry, uh, at Georgia Baptist Mission Board, and one of those is child protection policy. And, uh, we do support Senator Cowsert's bill here. We appreciate him and his willingness to do this. Uh, I have taught 18 breakout sessions over the last three years in our Georgia Baptist Spark conferences where I deal with child protection policy. [0:30:05] I work very closely with Greg Love in Ministry Safe. And I'll just be quite honest with you, there's, we can't do too much to protect our children. And I've already was in here with Senator Hatchett, and I appreciate Senator Harrell as well. They've been working on this, and so we're not just coming at one direction. We're coming this direction, that direction, and I appreciate you all working together to do this. Um, you know, even Jesus said in, in the Book of Luke 17:2 that it'd be better that a millstone be tied about our neck, tossed into the deepest part of the sea, than to cause one little one to stumble. [0:30:43] So thank you, uh, Madam Chair, for your work on this too and this committee itself. That's what you seek to do to protect our children. And so we do support this bill. And, uh, with all the access that's going on today, uh, to children, and I- I'm not telling you that all parents are perfect, okay? We don't have perfect parents. But I do believe that the first responsibility according to God starts with those parents, and then government has a responsibility as well. But, uh, I do agree with this legislation. [0:31:15] We do agree with him. And, uh, we believe it would be very helpful to helping our children, uh, to be protected and for our parents to be more involved in it. Uh, so thank you, Madam Chair. [0:31:25] Thank you so much. David McGarry, you're next, and Justin Hill will be after David. [0:31:38] Madam Chairwoman, members of the committee, thank you very much for having me here today. My name is David McGarry, and I am the research director at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, which is a nonprofit that works to educate lawmakers and citizens about the effects of regulatory and economic policy. Um, the fact that I will testify today against the bill doesn't mean that I don't want children to be safe online. In fact, I think children must be made safe online. [0:32:08] Um, that's a simple, basic function of government and civil society. However, when considering any, any new regulation, we have to ask first whether it will be, it will be effective and second, whether it will create new risks that actually endanger the very children that we seek to protect. Um, I'm happy to explain the reasons why I do not think this bill would be particularly effective, but I would like to focus instead with my, or during my remaining time, on the unintended consequences. [0:32:39] In order to comply with this bill to do age verification, app stores would have to collect a staggeringly personal type of data. Most data or most age verification services today work on the basis of scans of government documentation such as, such as IDs or facial scans. And although often we hear claims that these sorts of services can collect and store this data in a responsible way, that simply isn't true. [0:33:11] We've seen hacks and data breaches and other incidents going from the biggest tech companies to third-party age verification providers. Even France, which instituted regulations to purportedly make this process safe, um, found within six months of those regulations going into effect that data was being improperly leaked. Um, [0:33:36] what exists today in, in, in, along the lines of parental controls, especially with the newest updates from Apple and Google, actually provide far more comprehensive and granular and customizable tools to parents than anything offered in this bill. Putting a rigid one-size-fits-all standard that instead of bolstering parental decision-making replaces it with the decision-making of the government as Justice Scalia, or to borrow from a Justice Scalia opinion in, um, Brown versus, uh, Entertainment Merchants Association, that, that is not, that is not going to be effective in making parents more and better able to protect their children online. [0:34:21] Just to give one example, um, our goal here, I think, today is to make it as easy as possible for parents to keep their children safe. A one-size-fits-all standard, a rigid one-size-fits-all standard that requires parents to approve every download or, say, every update isn't going to make parents' lives easier. Um, as I said, cr- these ex- existing controls are much more customizable. Parents can su- adapt them to fit the needs of themselves and of their children. [0:34:52] And to do so in a, um, in a convenient and workable manner. And I know I'm running up against time, but I will just finally say that I don't think that the current system is just working the way it is. Obviously, um, if it were, we wouldn't be sitting here today. But I would, I would say that I- I've- I've worked with some of these tools, and the actual using of them operationally is- is- is quite straightforward. The problem is that parents don't always know exactly how to find the right answers and how to work with the tools. [0:35:23] But that puts us in a different place. That w- that leaves us asking the question of how can we empower parents to work with the tools to make the best decisions for their families instead of imposing a privacy-threatening and most likely unconstitutional mandate. I would be more than welcome to take any questions, and I thank you for your time. [0:35:43] Thank you very much. [0:35:47] Next, um, Justin Hill, and after that's gonna be Julie Barrett. [0:35:57] Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is, uh, pardon me. My name is Justin Hill, not to be confused with your predecessor, Judson Hill. Um, he is a better fisherman, but I'm a little younger. Uh, I am, uh, in my fourth, uh, I'm in my second term of recovery from the Missouri House of Representatives. Um, I did, well, I did four terms, and I, and I, uh, had a lot to do with a lot of tech policy back then. And, and I still work in the space. So I represent NetChoice, the right of center trade association, um, that includes all of these corporate members that you hear from today or hear about today. [0:36:32] Um, so yeah, this is, this is a bit of an industry fight. Um, I've worked on it the last year. I think I've been in 20 plus states. Last year, um, this bill was filed in 21 states, so where it was denied in 19 of those 21. The ones that it did pass are being litigated. Uh, so if you're not familiar with NetChoice, NetChoice has litigated these in the past, uh, primarily, uh, well, one case included in your state, Senate Bill 351 from two years ago, uh, basically on the f- on the First Amendment grounds. [0:37:04] Uh, NetChoice is a- again, right of center fr- trade association, but our, our role is to protect the internet for s- free speech and free enterprise. While we do cherish children, trust me, we are parents. I have four teen, teen boys, and this has been a challenge for me, so I appreciate what Senator Harrell said about it is very hard to find, uh, the tools. But what... I'm gonna get back to that, Senator, if you'll let me. Um, the senator, uh, the sponsor senator, um, mentioned the, the movie theater, and I think that's a great analogy because a lot of us forget about what happened in the '90s when video games got really violent and- and the public erupted, and Congress had to do something. [0:37:44] Well, we went and tried to do a similar thing, and the Supreme Court said no. Uh, it was a Reno case. I for- uh, it, the Communications Decency Act it was called. And what happened after that was the industry regulated itself. So the R-rated movie, it wasn't illegal to see an R-rated movie. The industry rated it R because they w- they had an interest in protecting children and allowed parents to make that decision, and I'm glad they did it that way. And what's occurring now, because two years ago or a year and a half ago, the industry realizes, yeah, we, you know, technology is growing so fast. [0:38:19] We've got to do better to protect kids online. They are bolstering online protection of children today. So funny story, two weeks ago, I was, uh, on the road, uh, testifying somewhere, and- and my son got a te- text me. He said, "Dad, I can't access this app." He's 17 now. And I'm like, "What are you talking about? I- I- I freed up all your apps. There's no more parental guidance." We had a good talk, and I now allow him to make those decisions. I still check on him because I'm a good parent. But he said, "I don't know what happened." Well, he updated his phone. [0:38:50] It defaulted. He's got an Apple product. It defaulted his age to nine years old, which is fantastic because then I had to go in, and I def- okay, here's the, here's the new option. So it, it, the m- the measures, safety measures are built in. They recognize this has been a problem. They're making it a priority. And- and I would just encourage you to allow it, allow the free market to fix this problem. But there is one loophole we need, we do need to fix, and that is parenting. It is hard to be a parent in a digital age, even for me. [0:39:22] I'm not a spring chicken, but I'm s- you know, I'm younger than Judson Hill. And so he, um, got a few laughs out of that. But it, you know, parents need to be educated on this issue. Look at your neighbors south in Florida, where they, they passed a bill to educate children in school and educate parents, give them the tools, point them to the locations where they can find the information to help keep care, their kids safe. And I know, I think I'm out of time, but please use me as a resource. Use NetChoice as a resource. We want to help protect children. [0:39:54] Thank you, Madam Chair. [0:39:55] Thank you. One question. Do you still live in Missouri? [0:39:58] You know what? It's a great question. Um, I was actually forced out of Cobb County as a child. My parents moved me to Missouri. And, um, I ran for office in Missouri. Uh, and when I resigned, I moved to Florida. Now, I wanted to know, I- I- I do wonder what a primary would've been between Justin Hill and Judson Hill. How confusing would that been, huh? [0:40:21] Great. Yeah. Uh, Senator Hatchett first and then Senator Brass. [0:40:27] So w- help me understand, based on your testimony, are you against any regulation right now, and you're saying just let the social media companies figure it out or let the App Store figure it out? [0:40:38] Um, you know, well, may I, can I answer your question with, um, not a question but a statement here? An unconstitutional law helps no children. So we, they are passing laws that- that, um, uh- ... are more education prone, right? They are passing laws that go after the content and not the platform, like age verification for porn sites. No, that's fantastic. Like, that's silly not to think that way. Um, it's just when it c- when it conflicts with the First Amendment, the problem is we go down a, a year or two path thinking we're gonna save children, and we've lost a year or two of protecting children from content online. [0:41:18] So you really need to regulate, regulate content creators and, and hosts, right? And, and actually put that money that you're gonna spend on this lawsuit if you join Texas and the other states that are passing this all, Alabama will be next. Th- this has a fiscal note. It costs millions to defend a case to the Supreme Court. Give that to law enforcement to hunt down predators. [0:41:44] Senator Brass. [0:41:46] Thank you, Madam Chair. [0:41:47] Yes, sir. [0:41:47] So Justin, you said this was a, a tech fight. Can you walk me through who's on each side? [0:41:56] Um, well- [0:41:57] I'm trying to understand the- [0:41:59] Thank you, Senator [0:41:59] ... dynamics of this. [0:42:01] So s- platforms, so y- you know, your device manufacturers, they don't want the risk because, uh, of, of doing this method because they, they aren't in the best, they aren't, it's, they're not in the practice of doing that now, right? Um, they have, now you have apps, social media companies, it could be a plethora, it could be thousands, right? [0:42:22] Right. [0:42:22] They have risk in some cases, right? Some app that could be created in a basement in Georgia, you know, could have harmful content on it. You know, they would love the ability to, to not have to worry about the content they're putting out gets in the wrong hands, right? They want someone else, like a device, to be responsible. [0:42:44] So your apps are gonna be for your Apples and Googles and all that are against- [0:42:49] Yeah [0:42:49] ... platforms like- [0:42:49] Typically your device manufacturers that don't do this action now. I mean, I, I will tell you 'cause we have members on both sides, like I said. And, and the ones that do have social media platforms, they're actually r- doing really well now, like the most recent updates. My son, I finally allowed him to, to join Instagram. He's 13. [0:43:10] That's right. [0:43:10] The reason I'm doing it is for his college. Colleges use it. So he's got a teen account. I was so happy Meta created a teen account because it forces me to be engaged. I get to watch everything he does on that app. I don't have to pick, allow the other apps. I still get to parent, but I, I chose I'm gonna let him use Instagram. [0:43:31] Okay. Senator Hatchett had a follow-up. [0:43:33] Yes, so just trying to help me understand again. Are you saying that we should not regulate apps or social media companies, and we should let them figure it out on their own? [0:43:45] Um, you know, that's, it's really hard to answer because, first off, the federal government should be, should be handling this 'cause there's 50 states, right? And if every state has, um, different regulations, we're all gonna have to defa- default to the most restrictive one. [0:44:03] So- [0:44:03] So we get, we get- [0:44:04] ... here in Georgia- [0:44:04] Yeah [0:44:05] ... here in Georgia, should we not regulate these? Is that, I mean- [0:44:07] And we're not passing- [0:44:08] ... I'm not, I'm not- [0:44:08] So- [0:44:09] ... trying to be combative- [0:44:09] Yeah [0:44:09] ... I'm trying to understand where you're coming from 'cause some of the stuff you said- [0:44:13] I would say there's stuff you can regulate, yes, for cer- for sure. Keeping, you know, kids away from harmful content for sure, but how you do it is, really matters. [0:44:21] And you're against age verification? [0:44:23] Age verification, so if, like right now, if you go into a grocery store, uh, to buy beer, you gotta show identif- identification to make sure you are an adult to buy beer, right? If you're a child, obviously that's not gonna work out. Th- that's one thing. If you are seeking information, the First Amendment is, is a higher scrutiny, right? So this bill would essentially move that process of IDing for the beer to the outside of the store, okay? [0:44:55] So, hey, h- you can have access to all of this, but before you go in, we need to see your ID here. [0:45:00] Like, so- [0:45:00] So- [0:45:00] ... like a bar when you walk in, there's a bouncer. Like, is that what you're trying to- [0:45:04] Right. Right. [0:45:06] Okay. [0:45:07] Okay. [0:45:07] Thank you. [0:45:08] Thank you. We need to keep moving, but, um, I'll just point out that we pass laws in Georgia all the time that the federal government should be dealing with- [0:45:16] That's true [0:45:16] ... but not, so we're- [0:45:17] Sure [0:45:17] ... doing it ourselves. So- [0:45:18] Yeah, the patchwork's hard [0:45:19] ... thank you very much. [0:45:19] Thank you, Madam Chair. [0:45:20] Yes. [0:45:20] Okay. And, uh, Julie Barrett. [0:45:34] Your three minutes is starting now. [0:45:36] Okay. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you against, uh, Senate Bill 467 today. My name is Julie Barrett. I am a mother of four and the founder of Conservative Ladies of America. I'm speaking today as a voice for parents. We fled our home state of Washington three years ago after a devastating encounter with Washington's anti-parent laws. What we experienced fueled my fli- my fight to educate parents and lawmakers about policies that impact children and families. I share the intention of this bill in protecting children, but Senate Bill 467 does not protect children, and it does not empower parents. [0:46:12] Senate Bill 467 requires age verification for every user and identity verification for every parent, but it never defines what data must be collected. It doesn't tell us whether parents will be asked for a driver's license, a passport, a Social Security-based identity check, or even biometric scans. It doesn't limit what documentation can be required or whether third-party vendors may be used. Once that data is collected, the bill is silent on where it will be stored, how long it will be retained, who has access to it, or what security standards must be used. [0:46:42] Requiring identity verification for everyone creates a massive pool of sensiti- of sensitive information, and no system is immune to breaches. Supporters say the bill protects children, but think of the App Store as the front door to a house. This bill locks the front door, but it leaves every window and the garage door wide open. Once a child downloads the app, all of the in-app dangers are still there. The senator asked about targeted advertisements and in-app dangers. All of those still exist under this policy. The only thing that has changed is that you had to provide age-verifying data for both the parent and the child for the child to download the app. [0:47:18] This bill gives parents a false sense of security, citizens give up sensitive data, and children are not protected. The bill also requires every minor to be tethered to a parent account, but it never explains how that relationship will be verified. There is no standard for proving legal custody, no process for preventing a non-parent from linking to a child, and no safeguards for vulnerable children. If the state mandates this linkage, it also, it must also mandate verification standards, and S- Senate Bill 467 doesn't do that. And because the bill regulates developers as well as in-store, in, as well as app stores, age verification data and parental consent signals must be transmitted downstream, including to potentially foreign developers who may mean, may not be subject to US privacy laws. [0:48:05] Parents absolutely want to protect their children online, but we should not have to hand over sensitive identity documents, enter an unregulated data collection system, or submit to continuous monitoring in order to do that. Senate Bill 467 creates obligations for family without providing protections to ensure those obligations are safe. Protecting kids does not require building a statewide identity verification system that puts families at risk. We must educate and equip parents with the tools that are available through the Apple App Store and through Google's App Store so that they can do this effectively for their children. [0:48:39] Parents are the ultimate responsibility for prot- protecting their children. Thank you for letting me speak today. I'd be happy to take any questions if you have any. [0:48:48] Thank you very much. Okay, next is Casey Stefanski, and after that Matt Thresh. [0:48:58] Good afternoon. Thanks for having me. Um, Chairwoman and members of the committee, given that I just have a short amount of time, I wanna be able to address some of what I would call myths that have brought up, been brought up today. Um, the first myth is that the bill will require government ID or invasive age verification. That's not true. App stores already collect birthdays, payment information, more data than you can imagine. So for most families, new data would not need to be collected. [0:49:28] Second, some have argued that the legislation is unnecessary because parents are lazy and parental controls already exist. Some even claim that the bill would disembow- disempower parents, um, when just a few weeks ago Google emailed my friend's 12-year-old son with detailed instructions on how to remove parental controls without parental consent starting on his 13th birthday. Uh, these app stores pretend 13-year-olds are adults. Um, we then also, my friend bought a popular internet guide to setting up iPhone parental controls. [0:50:03] It's 80 page... It's an 80-page manual with 330 screenshots, and it costs $30 to buy. And according to the expert who wrote it, it takes roughly two hours to complete and still does not address the thousands of issues. Um, third, the bill does not shift responsibility. First of all, uh, there's no fix-all solution, so as Senator Cowsert mentioned, it's not, you know, one or the other, it's all. [0:50:34] Um, but this bill does not shift the responsibility away from developers. Uh, it assigns responsibility where it makes sense. So app stores are the gatekeepers. Uh, they control the download process, account creation, and payment systems, so they should handle age verification. And developers must still provide accurate ratings, maintain appropriate safety defaults, and comply with applicable laws. It's written to be r- roughly split. Um, there are dozens of bills aimed at regulating social media, and none focused on app stores. [0:51:08] Addressing the gatekeeper does not undermine other legislation. It strengthens the overall framework. Um, let's see. I don't know where I'm at on time, but, um- [0:51:19] You've got 45 more seconds. [0:51:20] Okay. Let's just say you've heard that, you know, similar law's been blocked in Texas. This, um, so this bill must also be unconstitutional. That's not true. The Texas version included c- carve-outs for educational and emergency apps. The judge relied heavily on those exemptions in applying strict scrutiny, um, leading to the law being enjoined. The same court has also blocked many other laws that have been overturned. Georgia's bill does not include those exemptions. [0:51:50] It's been carefully revised to address the specifics, concerns in, raised in Texas. Thank- [0:51:57] Thank you. Uh, just one question. One of the Zoom speakers used your name in vain, the Digital, uh, Childhood Alliance, in that there's a relationship with Meta. Is that accurate? [0:52:09] Yeah, so Meta supports this bill, I think you've heard that, um, along with other tech companies and app developers. We're a nonprofit. We have over 170 organizations in our coalition. We have well over 200 donors. Um, so... [0:52:30] Okay. [0:52:30] Is that helpful? [0:52:30] One more question. [0:52:31] Yeah. [0:52:32] Okay. [0:52:32] Same, Madam Chair. [0:52:32] Yeah. [0:52:32] I just wanted clarification on, uh, what you said. So are you all funded by Meta? Could I get an answer on that? Do they fund you all? [0:52:40] No. So we as a nonprofit, we don't disclose our donors. I'm happy to talk to you afterwards. Um, I think what's important is we're here today to protect kids. Um, so again, happy to talk to you. We- [0:52:56] Okay, you have one more question? [0:52:58] Sure. [0:52:59] So as someone who appears to be seasoned in different types of legislation- [0:53:06] No [0:53:06] ... across the country, could you just help me understand? 'Cause I'm a little baffled by all this from this bill and a, uh, the bill that we heard last week Whether it be the App Store or the social media company, why are people, why are these companies resistant when we're trying to either verify a child's age or protect child from content online? Is it because they want to provide this type of content to children, or is it because they don't want to jump through the hoops to make sure they follow the law? [0:53:44] Is it a laziness issue, or is it a we're actually going after them? [0:53:49] I, I wish that- [0:53:49] Or is it something else? [0:53:50] No, I mean, I wish I knew the answer. I've been working on these issues since 2012. Um, and I think if we, if we had the, the answer, maybe things would be different. Um, but I think it's a combination. They're all obviously driven by profit, so anything that cuts into that is a threat to the bottom line. Um, but you'll have to ask them. I don't know. If I knew, maybe we, we wouldn't be here. [0:54:23] Thank you. [0:54:23] Yeah. [0:54:24] Okay, next is, uh, Mo Thrash and then Sharon Winkler. [0:54:31] John Halliburton. Um, I am not Mo Thrash. Uh, Mo and I represent Fraternal Order of Police, and, uh, FOP is in strong support of this bill. Uh, it helps protect children, which is one of our major objectives, uh, for law enforcement across the state. So, uh, we appreciate the bill, appreciate the sponsor. [0:54:49] Thank you. Questions? Okay. S- Sharon Winkler. [0:54:58] Thank you. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. Um, good afternoon. My name is Sharon Winkler, and I'd like to introduce you to my son, Alex Pizer. Alex was 17 years old and a junior in high school when he died by suicide, influenced by cyberbullying and pro-suicide content posted by algorithmic recommender systems on social media apps. He was an honor roll student who was active in theater, band, his church group, and Boy Scouts. [0:55:32] He had no history of mental health issues. We were blindsided by Alex's death. We learned of his online troubles in his suicide note. Parents need help in navigating this new smartphone age. We need to be given timely, accurate information about the chat, uh, the apps our children are using. How can parents be held accountable for the harms that come to our children if we are not given that accurate, basic information about the apps they are using? [0:56:06] Why are parents blamed when technology companies allow minors to enter into legally binding term-of-use contracts? Senators, we can do it all. You can do it all. It's both and, it's not either/or. The people who are against this bill, y- you can do it both. Y- you have three bills that are great, and I urge you to do them all. Now, if you've heard my testimony, uh, back to the, uh, Senate s- Senate Study Group, you know I have a background in IT. [0:56:44] Uh, the Federal Trade Commission, uh, just did a day-long seminar on age assurance. Um, you will learn that there are no government IDs needed anymore. There are no databases needed anymore. There are even now zero-proof knowledge, uh, technologies using blockchain where the sender requesting the user's age does not know who's coming back and verifying that child's age. [0:57:16] And age verification now can be as easy as over 18 or under 18. That's all they need to know, and nobody needs to know this. I would be happy to speak to this group again about what the FTC, uh, age assurance group said, or if you would like for me to get other industry experts in the age assurance field, I'd be happy to do that. Thank you. [0:57:43] Thank you very much. Um, Tripp Richardson and then Sarah Hunt Blackwell. [0:58:01] Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Tripp Richardson, and I'm here today with Frontline Policy Council in support of SB 467. I wanna thank you for the opportunity to speak. At its core, this bill is about protecting children and empowering parents. Right now, kids can access apps, make purchases, and share data online with very little meaningful parental involvement. SB 467 fixes that by requiring age verification and parental consent before minors download apps or make in-app purchases, and by making sure parents are notified if an app makes significant changes. [0:58:38] This matters because children are being exposed early and earlier to harmful content, predatory features, and data collection they simply don't understand. Parents deserve clear information and a real say in what their kids access, and SB 467 gives them that voice. Just as importantly, this bill is targeted and reasonable. It does not ban apps or block adults. It simply puts guardrails in place for minors and requires transparency and consent. That's common sense protection, not overreach. [0:59:10] For Georgia families, this means safer digital spaces, stronger parental rights, and clear accountability for app stores and developers. It identifies who we're protecting, our children, and puts responsibility where it belongs, on the companies that profit from their attention and data. Several other states are taking steps such as this, including Alabama, Tennessee, and Louisiana. Our children only get one childhood. [0:59:37] Yeah. We've got- [0:59:38] We cannot outsource their safety to algorithms and terms of service. We have a duty to act. I respectfully ask for your favorable consideration and support for SB 467 to help protect children, Georgia's children. Thank you. [0:59:52] Thank you. Uh, Sarah Hunt Blackwell, [0:59:58] and then Aidan Hiskey. And that's the last person signed down. [1:00:06] Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee. I'm Kendrick Holder, a legislative fellow with the ACLU of Georgia, an organization that- [1:00:14] What's your name again? I'm sorry. [1:00:15] Kendrick Holder, and I'm speaking in lieu of Sarah Hunt Blackwell with the ACLU of Georgia- [1:00:20] Okay [1:00:20] ... an organization that is dedicated to protecting the First Amendment rights of all Georgians. I'm here today to oppose SB 467, which requires parental consent for minors to access social media platforms. There is no question that SB 467 implicates the First Amendment. Its scope is broad, sweeping in social media platforms that adults and minors use to engage in protected speech and access to protected content. While obscenity falls outside the First Amendment protections, the bill reaches far beyond obscene materials. [1:00:55] Instead, it burdens access to vast amounts of lawful speech by requiring every minor account to be linked to a parent account to access information. The bill will prevent any minor who cannot obtain parental consent from accessing entire categories of information, including news dissemination apps. What we're talking about here is a requirement that young people have parental permission to access news and information. [1:01:26] For these reasons, SB 467 likely violates the First Amendment. To reinter- reiterate points that have already been made, the ACLU of Georgia also opposes age verification out of concern for data privacy. We all share concerns about the impacts of social media that can have on young people, but SB 467 is not the solution. The ACLU of Georgia is happy to discuss further with Senator Cowsert and other members who are willing to strike a balance between young people's rights and online safety. [1:02:01] We urge the committee to reconsider the provisions of SB 467. Thank you, and I yield for questions. [1:02:09] Thank you so much. Uh, Aidan Hiskey? [1:02:17] I probably butchered your name, so please speak clearly and tell us who you are. [1:02:21] It's actually the closest someone has gotten to it. [1:02:26] Good afternoon, Madam Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Aidan Scass, and I serve as a policy manager at Chamber of Progress, and on behalf of Chamber of Progress, a tech industry association supporting public policies to build a society in which all people benefit from technological advances, I respectfully urge you to oppose SB 467, which would mandate intrusive age verification and parental consent requirements that undermine privacy, centralized sensitive personal data, um, and risk cutting young people off from essential online resources. [1:03:00] We have provided extensive written testimony, so for today I'll just focus on our concerns with age verification, um, the cutting off of resources, and the litigation in Texas and Utah. Uh, on age verification, SB 467 requires app stores to perform account-level age verification using commercially available methods, effectively forcing the verification of the identity and age of all users, including adults. This approach necess- necessitates the widespread collection, storage, and processing of sensitive personal information, such as government identification or biometric data, even when users are simply accessing lawful general purpose apps on their own. [1:03:40] So an example here would be an adult downloading a weather app, a banking app, or a news app, um, that would be required to submit identifying information to an app store despite posing no child safety risks. This places adults in the unfair position of having to surrender sensitive personal data as a condition of participating in the digital economy. [1:04:02] On, um, cutting off resources by emphasizing identity verification and parental control over flexible content-specific safety measures, the bill also risks substituting compliance for meaningful protection. Restricting access through rigid consent mechanisms does not address the underlying causes of online harm and may instead push young people toward less visible or less regulated online spaces. A more effective approach here would focus on empowering developers to build age-appropriate experiences, improve digital literacy, and providing families with tools that support safety without requiring universal identity verification or blanket parental permission for ordina- ordinary app use. [1:04:43] And then finally, on the recent Texas ruling highlights, um, its constitutional issues as well as Utah, SB 467 follows a policy path that courts already reject. In December 2025, a federal judge blocked Texas's app store age verification law as likely unconstitutional under the First Amendment, finding that the state failed to use the least restrictive means to achieve its child safety goals and noting that existing parental control tools already allow families to manage children's app use without restricting lawful speech or requiring users to surrender identifying information. [1:05:20] SB 467 essentially adopts the same framework. Additionally, Utah is now facing a similar constitutional challenge. In February this month, a lawsuit was filed seeking to block Utah's app store age verification law again on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the state could not require broad account-level age gating and parental consent as a condition of accessing lawful apps. This reinforces that courts are increasingly skeptical of app store age verification mandates as a constitutionally permissible approach to child safety. [1:05:52] For these reasons, I respectfully again urge you to oppose SB 467. While protecting young people online is a shared priority, this bill would erode privacy for all, for all users, weaken platform-specific safety protections, and impose rigid consent requirements that risk harming vulnerable youth without meaningfully improving online safety. Thank you. [1:06:12] Thank you very much. Senator Cowsert, would you like to wrap up? [1:06:19] Thank you, Madam Chairman. What keeps going through my mind is all of these people in opposition, what's their solution? Not a single one of them has another solution, and I don't buy into the whole idea that age verification is inherently, um, wrong to do or unconstitutional. You gotta show your ID to get on an airplane. You gotta show your ID to buy alcohol, tobacco products, uh, and I don't see that as a legitimate argument. [1:06:52] Uh, it- somebody pointed out all of these companies, I'm just gonna call them high-tech companies, are gathering this data already anyway. They've got our data. Uh, they're, they're getting that when you use their apps and, and, and their products, and the question is, are they disseminating or not? This bill prohibits them from disclosing it to other people. Right now, I don't know that there's any law that prohibits Facebook, uh, or whatever, Apple or any of these, these apps from disclosing that information, and they have their ways of ascertaining age through their al- algorithms, et cetera. [1:07:30] That's how they have the targeted ads like you're worried about, uh, Senator Mallow. So I, I'm frustrated hearing everybody nitpicking finding one part or another that they don't like and objecting to it without coming up with another solution, and I, I acknowledge this does not solve all problems. I mean, the glaring weakness is it doesn't control everybody's laptop. It doesn't control your television when you're downloading things. This is applied to phones because that's the most prevalent use, and that's what kids are using to access it, and, you know, maybe somebody's gonna follow up with a bill that targets Facebook and Instagram and TikTok and whoever else later. [1:08:11] This one is, um, a first step, let's call it, you know, by, by going after what we know is the most commonly used access device to these apps, uh, and try to just give parents some say-so in their children's use of, of these, uh, applications that are, that are dangerous for children and, and that's where I'm trying to get. I am delighted to listen to anybody that has a, um, constructive suggestion how to address the problem that could- addresses these privacy concerns or other things. [1:08:47] Uh, I'm in r- office 432 right down the hall. Come see me. I, I do think this moves the ball forward. I don't think it solves all problems. I've had conversations with other senators that have children, particularly teenage children, and we all acknowledge they are more technologically advanced and savvy than most of their parents, and maybe they can find a way to get around it, but that doesn't mean you don't make it more difficult and give parents a say-so. [1:09:18] Thank you for bringing the bill. Thanks to everyone that testified, and, uh, I think we all learned a lot from this and the previous bill that we discussed. So, uh, stay tuned, and that's our agenda for today. We're adjourned. [1:10:11] Thank you.