Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/6291

Last Updated: December 12, 2025

Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act

HR. 6291, 119th Congress — read as touching Big Tech Platforms.

The sponsor

Rep. Walberg, Tim [R-MI-5]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$214,400 raised

23 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Federal Trade Commission" section, p. 908-910 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by the Yeas and Nays: 14 - 10.

December 10, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**Bill Analysis: HR 6291 - Children and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of wealth creation and strategic maneuvering.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 6291 is to strengthen online privacy protections for children and teens by amending the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) of 1998. This legislation aims to restrict the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information from minors.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

* Expands the definition of "operator" to include websites, online services, online applications, and mobile applications that collect or maintain personal information. * Updates the definition of "personal information" to include new categories such as geolocation data, biometric information, and persistent identifiers. * Prohibits operators from releasing personal information collected from children or teens for any purpose except internal operations support.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* Online service providers (e.g., social media platforms, online gaming companies) * Advertisers and data brokers * Parents and guardians of minors * Industry groups such as the Internet Association and the Digital Advertising Alliance

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has significant implications for my business interests. By restricting data collection and use, HR 6291 could:

* Disrupt targeted advertising revenue streams (a $100B+ market) * Increase compliance costs for online service providers * Stifle innovation in the digital economy by imposing overly broad regulations

From a strategic perspective, I'd classify this bill as a "threat" to my empire. The proposed changes would likely reduce the value of user data, making it more difficult to optimize advertising ROI and limiting opportunities for growth.

**PACs, Industry Groups, and Donors:** Notably, the sponsors of HR 6291 (Rep. Walberg and Rep. Lee) have received support from organizations like the Consumer Federation of America and the National Consumers League. These groups are likely "inefficient rent-seekers" attempting to impose unnecessary regulations on the digital economy.

In contrast, industry groups like the Internet Association and the Digital Advertising Alliance have been vocal in their opposition to this bill. Their efforts represent "smart capital allocation," as they work to protect the interests of online service providers and advertisers.

**Conclusion:** HR 6291 is a misguided attempt to regulate the digital economy. By imposing overly broad restrictions on data collection and use, this bill would stifle innovation and harm my business interests. I'll be closely monitoring its progress and exploring opportunities to influence the legislative process through strategic lobbying efforts.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Walberg, Tim [R-MI-5]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$214,400

19 donors

PACs

Organizations

$4,300

Committees

Individuals

$210,100

No PAC contributions found

POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

WEIR FARMS

2 transactions

$1,000

No committee contributions found

HAWORTH, ETHELYN

1 transaction

$47,900

HONIG, KEN

1 transaction

$31,600

HAWORTH, RICHARD

2 transactions

$21,600

DRESNER, LINDA

2 transactions

$13,200

LEVY, EDWARD C JR.

2 transactions

$13,200

KLARR, GUNNAR

1 transaction

$10,000

DEVOS, PAMELLA G

1 transaction

$6,600

WEISER, RONALD N

1 transaction

$6,600

DEVOS, DOUGLAS L

1 transaction

$6,600

DEVOS, SUZANNE C

1 transaction

$6,600

DEVOS, ELISABETH

1 transaction

$6,600

EHMANN, STEVE

1 transaction

$6,600

DEVOS, DANIEL G

1 transaction

$6,600

DEVOS, MARIA P

1 transaction

$6,600

DEVOS, RICHARD M JR.

1 transaction

$6,600

GLICK, RANDAL L

1 transaction

$6,600

PEARSON, JOHN E

1 transaction

$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Lee, Laurel M. [R-FL-15]

ID: L000597

Top Contributors

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NABPAC)

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Oct 29, 2024

DREAM FINDERS HOMES

OrganizationJACKSONVILLE, FL

$6,600

Mar 27, 2024

DREAM FINDERS HOMES

OrganizationJACKSONVILLE, FL

$6,600

Mar 27, 2024

DREAM FINDERS HOMES

OrganizationJACKSONVILLE, FL

$3,300

Mar 27, 2024

MICCOSUKEE TRIBE

OrganizationMIAMI, FL

$3,000

May 13, 2024

RANNEY, TIM

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSAINT PETERSBURG, FL

$6,600

Dec 10, 2023

BARNETT, HOYT R

PUBLIX • EXECUTIVE

IndividualLAKELAND, FL

$6,600

Feb 21, 2024

BOWDEN, VIRGINIA

STAR VIEW ADVISORS • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualCLEARWATER, FL

$6,600

Mar 28, 2024

HOSSEINI, FOROUGH B

ICI HOMES • CEO

IndividualDAYTONA, FL

$6,600

Mar 29, 2024

HOSSEINI, MORTEZA

ICI HOMES • CHAIRMAN & CEO

IndividualDAYTONA BEACH, FL

$6,600

Mar 29, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Walberg, Tim [R-MI-5]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 40 nodes and 26 connections (41 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $228,600

Top Donors - Rep. Walberg, Tim [R-MI-5]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs17 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 4 harmed.

−Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.90
Section 2(b)(2)(A) prohibits operators from collecting, using, disclosing, or maintaining personal information of children or teens for the purpose of providing individual-specific advertising to children or teens, which directly impacts business models of big tech platforms that rely on targeted advertising.
−Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.80
Section 2(b)(2)(A) restricts operators from using personal information for individual-specific advertising, which affects telecom companies that provide online services and may engage in targeted advertising to children or teens.
−E-commerce & Online Retailconfidence 0.70
Section 2(b)(2)(A) prohibits using personal information for individual-specific advertising, which impacts e-commerce platforms that rely on targeted ads for children or teens.
−Entertainment & Streamingconfidence 0.70
Section 2(b)(2)(A) restricts individual-specific advertising to children or teens, affecting streaming platforms that may target ads based on personal information of young users.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Federal Trade Commission

Strong

Vector: 70%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 6291 aligns closely with Project 2025's FTC policy by expanding COPPA to better protect minors online, addressing data collection practices, and targeting exploitative advertising—core concerns in the Project 2025 document regarding children's online safety and mental health harms from social media."

Key themes:children's online privacyCOPPA reformtargeted advertising restrictionsdata collection transparencyminor protection

Federal Trade Commission

Strong

Vector: 67%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns strongly with Project 2025's FTC policy objective of protecting children online by expanding COPPA to cover teens, enhancing data privacy protections, and addressing targeted advertising—key concerns raised in the Project 2025 text regarding children's mental health and exploitative platform practices."

Key themes:children's online privacyCOPPA expansiontargeted advertising restrictionsteen data protectionFTC enforcement authority

— 875 — Federal Trade Commission Protecting Children Online. The FTC has long protected children in a variety of different contexts. Internet platforms profit from obtaining information from children without parents’ knowledge or consent—and social media’s effect on the well-being of American children is well-documented. Around 2012, American teens experienced a dramatic decline in wellness. Depression, self-harm, suicide attempts, and suicide all increased sharply among U.S. adolescents between 2011 and 2019,16 with similar trends worldwide.17 The increase occurred at the same time that social media use moved from rare to ubiquitous among teens,18 making social media a prime suspect for the sudden rise in mental health issues among teens. In addition, excessive social media use is strongly linked to mental health issues among individuals. Several studies strongly support the notion that social media use is a cause, not just a correlation, of subjective well-being and poor mental health.19 Social media and other large platforms form millions of contracts every year with American children. And even though a minor can void most contracts into which he or she enters, most jurisdictions have laws that hold minors accountable for the benefits received under the contract. Thus, children can make enforceable contracts for which parents could end up bearing responsibility. Targeting chil- dren to create potentially harmful contracts or making parents responsible for such contractual relationships is an unfair trade practice. The FTC, therefore, has the authority, interest, and duty to protect children online from such contractual relationships. l The FTC should examine platforms’ advertising and contract- making with children as a deceptive or unfair trade practice, perhaps requiring written parental consent. Currently, the Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)20 regulates the information internet firms can obtain from children. COPPA fails because it (1) only protects children under the age of 13, leaving older teenagers completely unprotected and (2) only prohibits platforms from collecting information from a child using “actual knowledge” rather than abiding by the “constructive knowledge” standard, which prohibits collecting information from a user reasonably assumed to be underage. The FTC has rulemaking authority under this statute but has done little with this authority, nor can it—given the statutory constraints. However, l The FTC can and should institute unfair trade practices proceedings against entities that enter into contracts with children without parental consent. Personal parental responsibility is, of course, key, but the law must respect, not undermine, lawful parental authority. — 876 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Other conservatives are more skeptical concerning the effect of online expe- rience on the young, comparing the concern about social media to concern about video games, television, and bicycle safety. They point out, as does Cato fellow Jeffrey A. Singer, that the psychiatric profession has yet to designate “internet addiction” or “social media addiction” as a mental disorder in the authoritative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR).21 These con- servatives also maintain that calling for regulation undermines conservatives’ calls for parental empowerment on education or vaccines as well as personal parenting responsibility. In addition, some of the methods used to regulate children’s internet access pose the risk of unintended harms. For instance, age verification regulations would inevitably increase the amount of data collection involved, increasing privacy con- cerns. Users would have to submit to platforms proof of their age, which raises the risks of data breach or illegitimate data usage by the platforms or bad actors. Limited-government conservatives would prefer the FTC play an educational role instead. That might include best practices or educational programs to empower parents online. Antitrust Enforcement. As is evidenced by a relentless focus on bringing Big Tech lawsuits, state attorneys general (AGs) are far more responsive to their con- stituents than is the FTC. Such a “boots on the ground” approach would benefit the FTC enormously. Practically, this would mean establishing a distinct role in the FTC Chairman’s office focused on state AG cooperation and inviting state AGs to Washington, D.C., to discuss enforcement policy in key sectors under the FTC’s jurisdiction: Big Tech, hospital mergers, supermarket mergers, and so forth. FTC regional offices are substantially more in touch with local issues. Over the past few decades, the reach and influence of regional offices has shrunk dramati- cally. The FTC should consider returning authority to these offices. Some conservatives however are less supportive of this idea. Conservative enthusiasm for the idea of adding regional FTC offices to the states is a break from the majority conservative position. Endorsing the federal government as a pre- mier job creator runs counter to decades of conservative opinion that holds that New Deal agencies and subsequent government bodies should never have been created in the first place, and that their red tape and interference is a dominant cause of economic inefficiency. Republicans used to seethe when Democrats tried to move federal offices into the states. In the early 1990s, House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich fumed about Senator Robert Byrd’s campaign to transfer certain national intelligence facilities to West Virginia, calling it a “pure abuse of power.” Some contributors to this chapter would remind conservatives that the unseen mechanics of redistribution—by which taxpayer money paid to state employees is taken from taxpayers nationwide—is a drag on the economy of the entire country. Many conservatives fear that it would be impossible to uproot or even prune back

Department of Education

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 377-379AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 policy aim to strengthen privacy protections for minors and enhance parental control over personal information, though the bill targets online services broadly while Project 2025 focuses on educational records and surveys."

Key themes:child privacyparental consentdata protectiontransparencyminors' rights

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 377-379AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on children's online privacy and data protection, while the Project 2025 policy emphasizes parental rights in education, particularly regarding curriculum transparency and legal remedies for violations of FERPA and PPRA. Although both involve protecting minors and parental authority, their domains (online privacy vs. educational policy) and mechanisms differ significantly, resulting in only tangential alignment."

Key themes:parental rightsprotection of minorsprivacy protectionsFERPA/PPRAdata privacy

— 344 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise pronouns). The federal government could demand that schools include curriculum or lessons regarding critical race or gender theory in a way that violates parental rights, especially if it requires minors to disclose information about their religious beliefs, or beliefs about race or gender in violation of the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (20 USC Sec. 1232h). To remedy the lack of clear and robust protection for parental rights, the next Administration should: l Work to pass a federal Parents’ Bill of Rights that restores parental rights to a “top-tier” right. Such legislation would give families a fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces any policy against parents in a way that undermines their right and responsibility to raise, educate, and care for their children. The law would require the government to satisfy “strict scrutiny”—the highest standard of judicial review—when the government infringes parental rights. l Further ensure that any regulations that could impact parental rights contain similar protections and require federal agencies to demonstrate that their action meets strict scrutiny before a final rule is promulgated. At the same time, Congress should also consider equipping parents with a private right of action. Two federal laws provide certain privacy protections for students attending educational institutions or programs funded by the department. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protects the privacy of student education records and allows parents and students over the age of 18 to inspect and review the student’s education records maintained by the school and to request corrections to those records. FERPA also authorizes a number of excep- tions to this records privacy protection that allow schools to disclose the student’s education records without the consent or knowledge of the parent or student. The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) requires schools to obtain paren- tal consent before asking questions, including surveys, about political affiliations or beliefs; mental or psychological issues; sexual behaviors or attitudes; critical appraisals of family members; illegal or self-incriminating behavior; religious prac- tices or beliefs; privileged relationships, as with doctors and clergy; and family income, unless for program eligibility. The difficulty for parents is that FERPA and PPRA do not authorize a private right of action. If a school refuses to comply with either statute, the only remedy is for the parent or student (if over the age of 18) to file an administrative complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, which must then work with the school to obtain compliance before taking any action to suspend or terminate federal — 345 — Department of Education financial assistance. Investigations can take months if not years. The department has never suspended or terminated the funding for an educational institution or agency for violating FERPA or PPRA. In essence, Congress has granted parents and students important statutory rights without an effective remedy to assert those rights. l The next Administration should work with Congress to amend FERPA and PPRA to provide parents and students over the age of 18 years with a private right of action to seek injunctive and declaratory relief, together with attorneys’ fees and costs if a prevailing party, against educational institutions and agencies that violate rights enshrined in these statutes. This will empower parents and students, level the playing field between families and education bureaucracies, and encourage institutional compliance with these statutory requirements. Protect Parental Rights in Policy In addition to strengthening legal protections for parents, the next Adminis- tration should: l Prioritize legislation advancing such rights. Promising ideas have appeared in bills introduced in the 117th Congress such as H.R.8767, the Empowering Parents Act,15 sponsored by Representative Bob Good (R-VA); H.R. 6056, the Parents’ Bill of Rights Act,16 sponsored by Representative Julia Letlow (R-LA); and H.J.Res. 99,17 proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to parental rights, sponsored by Representative Debbie Lesko (R-AZ). l These congressional actions should be carefully reviewed to make sure they complement state Parents' Bills of Rights, such as those passed in Georgia (2022), Florida (2021), Montana (2021), Wyoming (2017), Idaho (2015), Oklahoma (2014), Virginia (2013), and Arizona (2010). As documented by writers such as Abigail Shrier and others, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons documented a four-fold increase in the number of biological girls seeking gender surgery between 2016 and 2017. Larger increases were found in the U.K. from 2009 to 2019 and 2017 to 2018. These statistics and others point to a social contagion in which minor children, especially girls, are attempting to make life-altering decisions using puberty blockers and other hor- mone treatments and even surgeries to remove or alter vital body parts. Heritage Foundation research finds that providing easier access to such treatments and

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 515-517AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on children's online privacy protections under COPPA, while the Project 2025 policy addresses family caregiver strategy, telehealth licensure, and contraceptive mandate reforms under HHS. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 483 — Department of Health and Human Services l Readdress the National Strategy to Support Family Caregivers. While in theory the strategy aims to support family members with duties to care for older family members, the plan is overly focused on racial and “LGBTQ+ equity.” The strategy should be examined to establish an efficient plan to support caregivers and their families. There should also be a review of its COVID-19 policies. HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (HRSA) l Congress should allow CMS to use the 340B data that HRSA collects rather than having CMS conduct its own survey, especially in view of the U.S. Supreme Court’s American Hospital Association v. Becerra decision.69 The legislation should also create penalties for those who do not respond to HRSA’s data collection. l Legally define the locus of service as where the provider is located during the telehealth visit rather than where the patient is. With such a definition, states could continue to reserve their powers to establish the standards for licensure and scope of practice. The providers could ensure continuity and consistency of care no matter where their patients might move while maintaining the licenses that make the most sense for them. Americans are far more mobile and technologically advanced today than they were when most health care laws were written. Telehealth has become increasingly important, particularly during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. It also has great potential in rural and other areas where there are shortages of health care providers. HRSA’s Office for the Advancement of Telehealth includes a program known as the Licensure Portability Grant Program, which bolsters state efforts to reform licensing laws to maximize telehealth flexibility. HRSA does not have the authority through this office to dictate licensure laws; that power has typically been reserved to the states. However, telehealth across state lines, when permitted, is interstate commerce, which can be regulated by the federal government according to the Constitution. l Restore Trump religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate (also a CMS rule). HHS should rescind, if finalized, the regulation titled “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” proposed jointly by HHS, Treasury, and Labor.70 This rule proposes to amend Trump-era final rules regarding religious and moral exemptions and accommodations for coverage of certain preventive services under the ACA. Preventive services include contraception, and — 484 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise it appears the proposed rule would change the existing regulations for religious and moral exemptions to the ACA’s contraception mandate. There is no need for further rulemaking that curtails existing exemptions and accommodations. l Require HRSA to use rulemaking to update the women’s preventive services mandate. The contraceptive mandate issued under Obamacare has been the source of years of egregious attacks on many Americans’ religious and moral beliefs. The mandate was issued as part of the women’s preventive services guidelines, which were issued without any rulemaking that involved public notice and an opportunity to comment. Instead, HRSA issued and changed the mandate by simply posting changes to its website. HRSA also started off not requiring coverage of fertility awareness–based methods of family planning, then requiring them, and then removing the requirement without notifying the public. A federal judge recently ruled that this failure to undergo notice and comment in issuing the mandate is unlawful. HRSA should be required to repromulgate any women’s preventive services mandates through the notice and comment process that is compliant with the Administrative Procedures Act. Moreover, since the Obama Administration HRSA entered into long- term contracts with the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and related entities to serve as an exclusive adviser with respect to the content of this mandate, HRSA has used this arrangement to ignore comments that members of the public were sometimes able to submit in the process, and ACOG has abused its position to attack HHS’s allowance of religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate. HHS should rescind these contracts and establish an advisory committee that is compliant with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and has members that are committed to women’s preventive services and are not pro-abortion ideologues. l Expand inclusion of fertility awareness–based methods and supplies to family planning in the women’s preventive services mandate. The ACA requires coverage of and prevents insurance plans from imposing any cost-sharing requirements on women who obtain preventive care and screenings as defined by HRSA. In 2016, HHS included “instruction in fertility awareness-based methods” as part of this requirement. However, in December 2021, HHS removed that language from its list without using the notice-and-comment process or giving any rationale, both of which are mandated by the Administrative Procedures Act. In August

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Walberg, Tim

Aquatic Invasive Species Control and Prevention Act of 2026

119/hr/8876

PLAN for Broadband Act

119/hr/2805

America the Beautiful Motorcycle Fairness Act

119/hr/4386

Back to All Bills

Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act