S.1885 - Stop the Scroll Act (119th Congress)
Summary
The Stop the Scroll Act (S.1885) aims to mitigate the potential negative mental health impacts of social media use by requiring covered platforms to display mental health warning labels. These labels would alert users to potential risks and provide access to resources like the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. The bill mandates the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), with the concurrence of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to implement and regularly review these regulations.
The Act defines 'covered platforms' broadly, including social media and anonymous content sharing platforms. Enforcement is primarily through the FTC, with provisions for state attorneys general to bring civil actions under certain conditions.
This legislation reflects a growing concern over the mental health effects of prolonged social media engagement, particularly among younger users.
Expected Effects
If enacted, the Stop the Scroll Act would lead to the implementation of mental health warning labels on social media and anonymous content sharing platforms. Users would be regularly reminded of the potential negative mental health impacts associated with platform use.
This could potentially influence user behavior, leading to reduced screen time or increased awareness of mental health resources. The FTC and HHS would be responsible for ongoing regulation and review, adapting the warning labels to evolving technologies and medical science.
Covered platform providers would face potential penalties for non-compliance, incentivizing them to adhere to the new regulations.
Potential Benefits
- Increased awareness of potential mental health risks associated with social media use.
- Provision of resources like the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline directly to users.
- Potential for reduced screen time and healthier online engagement.
- Regular review and updates to warning labels based on evolving science and technology.
- Empowerment of users to make informed decisions about their social media consumption.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential for the warning labels to be ineffective if users become desensitized to them.
- Possible burden on covered platform providers to implement and maintain the warning label system.
- Concerns about potential overreach and government regulation of online content.
- Risk of unintended consequences, such as users migrating to unregulated platforms.
- Potential legal challenges based on free speech arguments.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The Act's constitutionality is debatable, particularly concerning the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. While the government can regulate commercial speech to protect public health, the regulations must be narrowly tailored and serve a substantial government interest. The Act's findings cite the Surgeon General's advisory and potential harms of social media, which could support a substantial government interest.
However, the breadth of the definition of 'covered platforms' and the requirement for repeated warnings could be challenged as overly broad restrictions on speech. The Act also grants enforcement powers to the FTC, consistent with Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce under Article I, Section 8.
State enforcement provisions are also generally consistent with principles of federalism, allowing states to protect their residents' interests within certain limitations.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).