The Illinois House of Representatives on April 16 passed House Bill 5511, which restricts social media algorithms, and now waits for hearings in the Illinois Senate. The bill’s largest supporter is Gov. JB Pritzker, who alluded to the bill in his most recent State of the State address, citing social media as a major concern of parents in Illinois. The bill was filed by state Rep. Jennifer Gong-Gershowitz in February.
HB 5511, also known as the Children’s Social Media Safety Act, is a bill that would require online apps to verify the age of users and place restrictions on online application algorithms and systems when in use by a minor. Notably, the bill does not place any restriction on what kind of content can appear in online applications, minor or otherwise; the bill is focused instead on addressing the influences of the “addictive feed” that Illinois’ minor population is exposed to.
Effective January 2028, the bill would require online applications (like social media) operating in Illinois to verify the ages of all new users according to age brackets: under 13 years, between 13 and 16 years, between 16 and 18 years, and above 18 years of age. According to the bracket, varying levels of restrictions will be imposed on the behavior of the online application, including: disallowing notifications from online applications between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., banning the sharing of minors’ precise location data, disallowing minors from online purchases (“gifted currency” exchanges) without parental consent, and blocking minors’ access to “addictive feeds” without parental consent. Within the bill, “addictive feeds” are defined as algorithms employed by online applications curated by and tailored for users’ data. For example, a non-addictive feed would only suggest user-made content from followed users and not suggest new user-made content based off of expressed interests. Violations of the bill will be prosecutable by individuals.
The bill is not without reason. Social media has been found throughout scholarly circles to have a negative impact on the mental health of participating individuals, affecting minors most harshly.
For example, a study published on June 18, 2025, in the Journal for the American Medical Association (JAMA), certified a link between social media use, social media addiction, and negative mental health outcomes, including suicidal ideation. Using data from the ongoing landmark Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study, children aged nine to fourteen years had their social media use tracked and processed alongside data about their mental health and data connecting mental health and their social media use. The study found that children who expressed either a high or increasing addiction in social media, of which the majority of participants expressed, were more likely to have negative mental health consequences, including a 2.14 to 1 ratio of expressed suicidal behaviors in addictive use participants against non-addictive use participants. An important note is that the study did not find a connection between total screen time and mental health, only between addictive behaviors and mental health.
The bill is also not standalone legislation; there is a recent trend of American governments and courts certifying social media’s negative impacts.
On March 24, 2026, a jury in New Mexico found Meta liable for misleading customers and putting the health of children at risk. State of New Mexico v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al. marks the first successful verdict a U.S. state has made against tech companies and their abuse of addictive design. The jury decided the maximum fine of five thousand dollars per violation, leading to a 375 million dollar penalty. New Mexico’s Department of Justice, in May, will continue pursuing Meta and define additional damages as well as force specific changes to Meta apps to reduce harm.
Just the day after, on March 25, 2026, a jury in Los Angeles decided against Meta and Google in a case where an individual sued Meta, Google, TikTok, and Snapchat for purposefully making their apps and social media addictive and harming her mental health. KGM v. Meta et al. was especially selected as one of three bellwether cases, a case meant to try out legal discussion on a new topic or conflict, regarding social media harm, amongst approximately 10,000 personal injury claims and 800 school district lawsuits nationwide. While TikTok and Snapchat settled out of court, Meta and Google continued on to trial and were found guilty by a jury, owing a combined 6 million dollars to the plaintiff for compensatory and punitive damages.
In the federal government, multidistrict litigations are pending more bellwether cases like KGM v. Meta et al., and the Kids Online Safety Act, not too dissimilar from online safety acts from around the world, is currently pending in congressional committees.
Bills like these must always bring up the discussion of safety versus privacy. HB 5511, in pursuit of protecting children from “addictive feeds,” will also require online applications to verify all participants’ ages, i.e., collect more data from users, and control user experiences according to that data. User age certification within the bill has also not been specified; in other words, the bill does not specify whether the user age verification method should be a simple questionnaire or a government-ID scan, the latter opening a whole other discussion. User age verification, beyond methodology, can also be argued to be hard to enforce.
HB 5511 marks yet another action in the new stance on social media, whose companies have operated freely until recently. Both science and administration across the world have begun to take action against the negative consequences of social media, and penalties for the world’s largest companies are starting to stack up.
I invite you, the reader, to sit down with your parents and discuss the bill; the pros and cons look different from the perspective of our parents. And remember, whenever legislation is on the table, you have a voice, and you have a say. Whether against or for, contact your state representatives regarding the issue, and remember that you can always freely exercise your First Amendment rights.