Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) is a Trojan Horse
The Kids Online Safety Act, a bill introduced by Marsha Blackburn, is being promoted as a major step toward protecting children from harmful online content. On its surface, the legislation appears straightforward and well intentioned. It promises stronger safeguards for minors using platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube.
The stated goal is to limit children’s exposure to a wide range of harmful material, from explicit adult content to posts that promote eating disorders or unhealthy body image. The bill would also require apps to default to the most restrictive settings when a user is identified as a minor. In theory, that means tighter privacy controls, stricter content filtering, and safer default configurations for young users.
At first glance, that sounds like a win for parents, but when you look closer, it’s a trojan horse for mass data collection.
Under the proposal, platforms would face legal liability if they “knew or should have known” that a user was a minor and failed to implement appropriate safeguards. That standard is where the debate begins to shift. Rather than requiring a clear age verification process defined in law, the bill places responsibility on platforms to determine, through their own methods, whether a user is underage. If they fail to do so and harmful content is shown, parents could potentially sue.
Supporters argue this creates accountability. Critics warn it creates incentives for something else entirely.
To avoid lawsuits, platforms would be strongly motivated to gather as much information as possible about users in order to make what the bill calls a best effort determination of age. While the legislation does not explicitly mandate expanded data collection, the liability framework could push companies to aggressively analyze user behavior, device information, browsing habits, and other signals to determine whether someone is a minor.
That could mean deeper monitoring of user activity within apps and potentially broader analysis of device level data, depending on permissions granted. Location history, usage patterns, contacts, and behavioral signals might all become part of an internal risk calculation designed to answer one question, is this person under 18.
The concern is that a bill designed to reduce harm to children could inadvertently expand digital surveillance across the board. Because the language is broad and does not spell out specific age verification mechanisms, companies may adopt expansive data collection practices to shield themselves from legal exposure. In practice, this could affect not only minors but adult users as well, since companies would need systems capable of evaluating everyone.
In short, the legislation presents a paradox. It seeks to limit exposure to harmful content, but it may simultaneously encourage more intrusive data practices in order to comply with the law.
For parents navigating this landscape, there are already tools available that provide direct control without relying on sweeping federal mandates. One example is Google Family Link. With Family Link, parents can manage screen time, approve or deny app installations, monitor app activity, and even lock a device remotely. The app also allows parents to review what data an app collects before approving it, turning the learning process into a teachable moment.
Beyond technical controls, many experts emphasize that open communication remains critical. Teaching children what is appropriate, encouraging them to speak up when they encounter something concerning, and walking them through how apps collect and use data can often be more effective than relying solely on legislative fixes.
The Kids Online Safety Act may continue to evolve as lawmakers debate its scope and consequences. What is clear is that the conversation is no longer just about content moderation. It is also about privacy, liability, and the growing tension between protecting children and preserving digital freedoms.
