Patterson Revives Social Media Ban in HB 212

Estimated Time to Read: 15 minutes

Texas lawmakers will once again consider whether the state, rather than parents, should decide when a child may use social media.

On November 9, the first day lawmakers could file legislation ahead of the 90th Legislative Session, State Rep. Jared Patterson (R-Frisco) filed House Bill 212 (HB 212). The bill would prohibit anyone younger than 16 from using covered social media platforms, regardless of whether a parent approves.

HB 212 closely tracks Patterson's House Bill 186 (HB 186) from the 89th Legislative Session (2025), which passed the Texas House by a vote of 116-25 and cleared the Senate Committee on State Affairs before dying without a vote in the full Senate. The new bill lowers the age threshold from 18 to 16, but it keeps the defect at the heart of its predecessor: a categorical, state-imposed prohibition that parents cannot waive.

As Texas Policy Research (TPR) argued throughout the debate over HB 186, concern for children's safety online is legitimate. A blanket ban that overrides parental judgment, conditions online speech on age verification, and invites constitutional challenge is the wrong response. HB 212 also runs directly against our own Texas Liberty Compact, which commits to protecting free speech and digital expression.

What HB 212 Would Do

HB 212 would add a new Subchapter C-1 to Chapter 120 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, titled "User Age Limitation." Its central provision is short: to the extent permitted by federal law, including the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), an individual younger than 16 may not use a social media platform.

The prohibition applies regardless of parental permission. HB 212 is not a parental-consent law. It does not let parents authorize their children's access, and it provides no exception for supervised use, educational use, or any other purpose a family might find appropriate.

To enforce the ban, platforms would have to verify that every person seeking to become an account holder is not younger than 16, using a "commercially reasonable method that relies on public or private transactional data." Because the requirement applies to every prospective account holder, adults would have to clear the same check as teenagers.

The bill restricts how platforms may handle the personal information collected for verification. They could use it only for age verification, could not retain or transmit it, and would have to delete it immediately after verification is complete.

Platforms would also have to provide a way for verified parents to request deletion of an under-16 child's account, and they would have 10 days to comply. If passed, HB 212 would take effect September 1, 2027, and its restrictions would apply to social media access beginning January 1, 2028.

From HB 186 to HB 212

Patterson filed HB 186 in November 2024 to prohibit anyone younger than 18 from using social media, a proposal TPR examined at the time ahead of the 89th session. The House Committee on Trade, Workforce & Economic Development approved a committee substitute 10-0, and the full House passed the bill 116-25 in late April 2025.

In the Senate, State Sen. Adam Hinojosa (R-Corpus Christi) carried the bill. The Senate Committee on State Affairs reported it favorably 8-3 on May 23, 2025, and it was placed on the Senate's intent calendar on May 26. It never received a floor vote, and the session ended without final passage.

TPR recommended a vote against HB 186, citing government overreach, the erosion of parental rights, new privacy risks, and constitutional concerns. HB 212 does not resolve any of those objections.

The most visible change is the age threshold. HB 212 would allow 16- and 17-year-olds onto covered platforms while keeping everyone younger than 16 off them. The bill also revises the language on account verification, parental deletion requests, and enforcement.

One quieter change concerns coverage. HB 186 amended the statutory definition of "social media platform" to exclude services used primarily for interactive gaming. HB 212 contains no definitional amendment, so it would operate under Chapter 120's existing definition and applicability provisions. Which services that framework reaches will matter a great deal to families and platforms alike.

What has not changed is the premise. Under both bills, the state decides, and parents have no say.

HB 212 Replaces Parental Judgment With a State Mandate

The most consequential feature of HB 212 is what it takes away from parents. A mother who decides her 15-year-old may use a platform to keep up with a church youth group, coordinate a club, run a small business, or stay in touch with grandparents would have no legal ability to allow it.

That makes HB 212 fundamentally different from a parental-consent requirement. Consent laws, whatever their flaws, leave the final decision with families. HB 212 leaves it with the Legislature.

Supporters of the bill point to real risks, including harmful content, addictive design features, harassment, and predators. They argue that a uniform age line protects children whose parents are unaware or disengaged, and that platform safeguards and parental controls have not been enough. Those concerns deserve a serious response, but a categorical ban is not one. Families differ in their children's maturity, circumstances, and reasons for being online. A single statewide rule cannot account for that, and it treats the attentive parent and the absent one exactly alike.

Americans appear to agree. As TPR previously noted, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression's (FIRE) April 2026 National Speech Index found that 69% of Americans trust parents at least somewhat to oversee social media use by minors, far more than they trust government or technology companies.

HB 212 also makes no distinction among uses. Communication with family, educational collaboration, participation in community and faith organizations, and engagement with public affairs would all be prohibited along with the scrolling that motivates the bill.

The question for lawmakers is not whether social media can harm some children. It is whether the state should forbid an entire category of lawful activity for every Texan younger than 16, even when a parent has decided supervised access is appropriate. TPR previously answered that question.

Age Verification Would Reach Every Texan, Not Just Children

A ban on minors cannot be enforced without checking everyone. HB 212 requires platforms to verify that every person seeking to become an account holder is not younger than 16. In practice, adult Texans would have to prove their age before they could join a platform and speak online.

The bill's reach likely extends further. Section 120.112 does not merely bar under-16s from holding accounts; it bars them from using social media at all. Section 120.115 makes it a violation for a platform to knowingly allow such use. A platform facing that liability has every reason to gate logged-out browsing and to re-verify existing account holders, even though the bill's verification mandate speaks only to new accounts.

HB 212 does not prescribe a verification technology. It sets a general standard of "public or private transactional data" and leaves platforms to interpret it. That flexibility could allow less intrusive methods, but it could just as easily produce inconsistent practices and heavy reliance on third-party verification vendors.

The bill also offers no alternative path for people who lack transactional records. Unbanked adults, young adults with thin credit files, and others outside the conventional financial system could find themselves unable to prove eligibility for services they have every right to use.

The bill's data-handling rules are real safeguards. Platforms could use verification data only for age checks and would have to delete it immediately. But statutory promises do not prevent breaches, and they do not govern how vendors process information before deletion. More fundamentally, once the state requires age-gating infrastructure for ordinary speech platforms, the pressure to expand it to other services will follow.

TPR has raised this concern repeatedly in its coverage of Texas social media policy. Efforts to regulate children's online activity quickly implicate the privacy of everyone else.

Australia's Ban Shows the Limits of Prohibition

Patterson has pointed to Australia as a model, and HB 212's age line now matches it. Australia's first year is a caution, not a template.

Australia's law took effect December 10, 2025. It requires designated platforms to take reasonable steps to keep anyone younger than 16 from holding an account. Children and parents face no penalty, but platforms face fines of up to $49.5 million (Australian) for systemic noncompliance, according to an analysis by DLA Piper.

The early numbers looked impressive. By mid-December, platforms had removed or restricted about 4.7 million accounts identified as belonging to under-16s, according to Australia's eSafety Commissioner.

The regulator's own follow-up told a more complicated story. Its March 2026 compliance update found that a substantial proportion of children younger than 16 were still keeping accounts, opening new ones, or passing platforms' age checks. eSafety opened investigations into Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube. A survey of parents of children ages 8 to 15 found account ownership on covered platforms had fallen from about 50% to about 31%, leaving a large share of children still on them.

eSafety's three-month evaluation, published in July 2026, found that the most common reason children kept their accounts was that platforms had not yet checked their age. About half of those who kept accounts gave that reason. Reporting on the evaluation also noted that under-16 use of Pinterest, which is not covered by the restrictions, rose after the ban took effect.

Australia's response has been to expand the regime. In September 2026, its Parliament passed amendments letting the eSafety Commissioner compel information from platforms and from third parties, including age-assurance providers and app store operators. That is the trajectory TPR has warned about: a ban that falls short invites more verification, more data collection, and more government reach.

Australia is also not Texas. It has no equivalent of the First Amendment, a point TPR has repeatedly made. A policy that struggles to deliver results without American constitutional constraints is a poor model for a state bound by them.

Texas Is Already Setting Social Media Rules Through Settlements

HB 212 also arrives less than three months after Texas reached a major settlement with Meta. In August 2026, Attorney General Ken Paxton announced that Meta would pay Texas more than $1 billion and change how Facebook and Instagram operate for minors.

The reported terms include stricter age-assurance measures, a daily two-hour time limit for teen users, and notifications turned off by default during school hours unless a parent changes the setting. Meta denied wrongdoing in agreeing to settle.

As TPR previously explained, those provisions go beyond penalties for past conduct. They set government-negotiated operating standards for products millions of Texas families use, and they were decided outside the legislative process. If a time limit or a particular age-assurance system is sound policy, lawmakers should debate it publicly and answer for it. A company's decision to settle is not proof that government got the policy right.

The settlement and HB 212 approach the same goal from two directions. One sets rules for teens' social media use through litigation; the other would replace those rules with a flat prohibition for everyone younger than 16. Neither leaves the central decision with parents. Before acting on HB 212, lawmakers should also ask how a categorical ban would interact with obligations Meta has already accepted in Texas, and whether the state is layering new mandates on top of old ones before either has been evaluated.

HB 212 Goes Further Than Laws Courts Have Recently Allowed

Social media platforms are venues for political discussion, religious expression, education, and ordinary communication. In Packingham v. North Carolina (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court described social media as among the most important places for the exchange of views in modern life. Minors do not hold every right adults do, but they retain significant First Amendment protection.

In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011), the Court struck down a California law restricting minors' access to violent video games. It acknowledged the state's interest in protecting children but held that the interest did not justify a broad restriction on protected expression.

The legal landscape has shifted, however, and an honest assessment of HB 212 has to account for it. In Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (2025), the Supreme Court upheld Texas's age-verification requirement for pornography websites. In May 2026, the Fifth Circuit allowed Texas's App Store Accountability Act (SB 2420) to take effect while litigation continues, after a federal district court had found the law likely unconstitutional. And in October 2026, the Eleventh Circuit held that Florida's HB 3 likely survives First Amendment scrutiny.

Supporters of HB 212 will cite all three. None of them, however, approves what HB 212 would do.

Free Speech Coalition involved content that is obscene for minors and that states may already keep from them. Social media is overwhelmingly protected speech. Florida's HB 3 bars accounts for children younger than 14 but lets parents approve accounts for 14- and 15-year-olds, and the Eleventh Circuit treated the law as regulating platforms by their addictive features rather than by their content. HB 212 contains neither feature. It gives parents no ability to consent at any age below 16, and it applies to platforms as a category rather than to specific design features.

In other words, the provisions that helped Florida's law survive are the ones HB 212 leaves out. HB 212 is broader than the Florida law the Eleventh Circuit allowed, and broader restrictions face a steeper constitutional climb.

The bill's language limiting its application to what federal law permits does not resolve these questions. Texas taxpayers would fund the defense of HB 212 in court, and Texas families would live under it in the meantime. TPR previously examined the litigation history in detail:

• Social Media Bans for Minors Are State Control, Not Child Protection
• Federal Court Blocks Texas App Store Accountability Act

Enforcement Through the Deceptive Trade Practices Act

HB 212 would make violations a deceptive trade practice actionable under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. A platform would violate the law if it knowingly failed to verify a new account holder, allowed a child younger than 16 to use its service, retained or used verification data improperly, or failed to delete an account after a qualifying parental request.

The parental deletion provisions reveal a tension in the bill's design. A deletion process matters only if under-16 accounts exist despite the ban, which amounts to a concession that the prohibition will be circumvented. The bill does not say how a platform should detect a child who has gotten past verification, or what technological standard governs prohibited use after an account is created.

The deletion provisions also impose a quiet new mandate. Platforms that are not digital service providers under Chapter 509 would have to build a parental verification system that complies with Subchapter C of Chapter 509, as if those requirements applied to them. That is a substantial compliance obligation extended to platforms the Legislature previously chose not to regulate under that chapter.

The knowledge standard will determine how this liability works in practice. Faced with uncertain exposure, platforms are likely to respond with aggressive age-gating and over-blocking, burdening lawful speech by teenagers and adults alike.

HB 212 and the Texas Liberty Compact

The Texas Liberty Compact sets out ten structural reforms that guide TPR's legislative analysis and recommendations. HB 212 runs directly against Plank 9, Protect Free Speech & Digital Expression, whose premise is that technological change must not become a pretext for indirect censorship or control.

Plank 9 warns that broad prohibitions on lawful digital platforms can substitute state authority for parental responsibility. That is an accurate description of HB 212. The plank calls on lawmakers to oppose blanket bans on lawful digital platforms, to ensure digital regulation complies fully with First Amendment safeguards, and to prefer targeted consumer protection over broad speech control. HB 212 fails each of those tests.

There are better approaches available. Lawmakers can strengthen and simplify parental-control tools, require greater transparency about platform design and data practices, target specific harmful conduct such as the exploitation and sextortion of minors, and tighten protections for minors' personal information. Each of these addresses real harms without making the state the final authority over every family's decisions.

Digital speech is speech. The First Amendment does not weaken because expression happens online, and the authority of parents does not end at the edge of a screen.

What HB 212 Means for the 90th Legislative Session

HB 212 signals that online child safety will be an early and prominent debate when the 90th Legislature convenes on January 12, 2027. HB 186's path through the House and a Senate committee shows the idea has substantial support, although a new Legislature will make its own judgment.

Lowering the age from 18 to 16 narrows the bill's reach without changing what it is. HB 212 would still impose a categorical prohibition that parents cannot waive, still require age verification that reaches adult Texans, and still invite costly constitutional litigation. It is also broader than the Florida law that recently survived review, because it omits the parental consent and design-focused provisions that court relied on.

Protecting children online is a goal every Texan shares. The question HB 212 presents is who should make the decision for each child. TPR believes that decision belongs to parents, and that lawmakers should reject HB 212 as filed. TPR will continue to evaluate the bill, and any substitute, against the Texas Liberty Compact as the session unfolds.

---

---