Stephen Kent – Consumer Choice Center

Virginia Governor Youngkin’s All or Nothing Approch to Social Media

For years, one topic has consistently managed to unite lawmakers from both sides of the aisle: social media and its effects on kids. In Virginia, bipartisan momentum led to a workable proposal—one that would have automatically limited screen time for users under 16 unless a parent opts out. Importantly, the bill stopped short of banning algorithmic feeds entirely.

But Governor Glenn Youngkin has since responded with a set of amendments that, while rooted in good intentions, make the bill significantly harder to implement and a lot less practical.

Parents, Not Politicians, Should Call the Shots

At the heart of this debate is a fundamental question: Who decides what’s best for kids? The compromise version of the Consumer Data Protection Act passed with unanimous support in the VA General Assembly and respected a simple but powerful principle—parents, not the government, should be in the driver’s seat when it comes to their children’s screen time.

Youngkin’s proposed changes that balance. He wants the default restrictions to extend until a teen turns 18 and seeks to limit features like auto-play and “instant scrolling,” which are core to how most apps function. But the original bill already handled the issue of overuse with its time limit provisions. Why go further?

Algorithms Aren’t the Enemy

Let’s be honest: the entire draw of apps like Instagram and YouTube lies in their ability to deliver content without users having to dig for it. Take that away, and you fundamentally change what those platforms are. Nobody wants to spend their time on Instagram searching for content. You’re there because you don’t know what you want. “Discovery” is the bulk of the fun and utility of this feature.

Ironically, algorithms are both the problem and the solution to most lawmakers’ concerns about content online. Yes, they can amplify harmful content—but they also help curate safer, more relevant experiences for younger users. A pure chronological feed, while seemingly “neutral,” can serve up just as much inappropriate material.

Parent Tools Already Exist

There’s no shortage of parental control options today. Apple, Google, and Amazon all offer robust tools to limit screen time, filter content, and monitor communication. In our home, we recently transitioned our 14-year-old from a Bark Phone to an iPhone, and we didn’t lose a step in terms of oversight.

From approving app downloads to shutting down unproductive apps, it’s all there. TikTok, Instagram, and others even have their own parental control features (though some require parents to download the app themselves, which is a fair concern for privacy-minded families).

So, What’s the Role of Government?

The compromise Virginia lawmakers reached wasn’t about stripping tech companies of their functionality. It was about nudging parents, many of whom are overwhelmed or unaware of the tools at their fingertips, into taking a more active role.

A one-hour default time limit isn’t a ban. It’s a prompt. It opens the door for conversations within families and encourages parents to set boundaries based on what works for them.

Don’t Forfeit a Compromise That Worked

Youngkin’s edits aim for a much broader and more restrictive approach, at the risk of throwing out a practical, consensus-driven solution developed by Virginia state delegates. What Virginia had was a smart, flexible policy that acknowledged both the value and the risks of social media.

Yes, regulation has a role here, like in any consumer-facing industry—but it should aim to empower families, not replace them. Virginia’s original bill struck that balance. Youngkin’s return to square one makes an already challenging bill for consumer choice even more fraught.

The Consumer Choice Center is an independent, nonpartisan consumer advocacy group championing the benefits of freedom of choice, innovation, and abundance in everyday life for consumers in over 100 countries. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, Brussels, Ottawa, Brasilia, London, and Geneva. Find out more at www.consumerchoicecenter.org.

State Bans on Sports Betting Are Not Helping Anybody

March 18, 2025
By Stephen Kent
In Recent Media, US Sports Betting Index
0 comments

Last week, Georgia’s state legislature declined once more to take up the legalization of sports betting as a ballot referendum in 2025. Georgians will now have to wait until 2026 for the measure to be reconsidered, despite polling from the University of Georgia showing that 63% of voters would have backed legalization. Across the country, 39 states have legalized the practice and nine holdouts remain, two of which include the population behemoths of Texas and California, where either referendum or the legislative cold shoulder has shut out legal sports betting.

And yet, sports betting is still practiced in staggering numbers in every state. A new report from NEXT/Blask shows that Bovada, a betting site based in Costa Rica, dwarfs the brand strength and earnings of regulated U.S.-based brands such as FanDuel and DraftKings.

The rise in offshore sports betting, far from any U.S. jurisdiction, should be concerning for both advocates and opponents of this particular type of gambling. Blask, an AI-powered analytics firm, shows remarkable market share for Bovada at $13 billion in 2024, larger than FanDuel and DraftKings combined. At the state level, the report shows Florida’s only regulated sportsbook, Hard Rock Bet, controls just 20% of the market, leaving the rest to offshore betting sites.

With college basketball’s March Madness now in full swing, this is a fact state legislatures should take more seriously. It is understandable why skeptics of online sports betting are disinclined to condone the practice. Their concern is that legalization represents a societal stamp of approval on gambling, which leads people to place bets who otherwise wouldn’t have considered it. The truth is that the rates of increased problem gambling are almost insignificant in comparison to how much access has been expanded, a point made by leading researcher Howard Shaffer.

The vast majority of overseas sportsbooks operate in the Caribbean and Latin America, where U.S. state regulations are a punchline. These sites will take whatever method of payment a willing gambler has, including cryptocurrency, money wires, or credit cards. For casual and problem gamblers alike, nothing is worse than betting on money you don’t have.

Just recently, personal finance guru Dave Ramsey laid into sports betting on his popular radio show after hearing about a listener’s husband who ran up $300,000 in gambling debt using credit cards. This kind of behavior can destroy lives, but advocates against sports betting have yet to provide an answer for how prohibition helps to reduce this kind of harm.

It’s not entirely clear how many illegal bets are being placed in either California or Texas on unregulated sportsbooks, but we do know that these states boast the largest populations in the U.S. Former Texas Governor Rick Perry did a video for the Sports Betting Alliance drawing attention to the estimated $8.7 billion in annual illegal bets placed in his state.

If that number is anywhere near accurate, it would explain why Bovada has such a dramatic lead over U.S. sportsbooks with basic consumer protections such as debit-only transactions and mechanisms for problem gamblers to limit their use or ban themselves altogether.

We also know from publicly available search data that inquiries for illegal sportsbooks such as Bovada drop by as much as 50% in the states with legal sports betting that offer taxed and regulated options.

In a painful personal essay for The Free Press, compulsive gambler Allan Loeb shared his life story as a gambling addict and the rapid growth of the betting industry.

He points out that the National Council on Problem Gambling has found only 1% of American adults suffer from gambling addiction, plus a modest 2.5% who wrestle with more mild habits. Loeb reminds us that nothing is more dangerous than being in debt to illegal operators who threaten not just your financial health but your physical safety.

This speaks to the fact that there is literally no way to restrict people in a free country with access to the Internet from engaging in gambling. This is the reality on the ground and is made even more complicated by a country with 50 states and a patchwork of varying regulations once you cross any state line.

State legislators get caught up in debates over tax revenue and funding mechanisms for education and infrastructure, but at the end of the day, legalization shouldn’t be pitched as a financial solution for a state’s revenue problems. It is the only way to provide a layer of consumer protection to your citizens who can access unregulated sites with a VPN and a few clicks.

Something has to change, whether that be California and Texas helping to starve the illegal market by legalizing their own sportsbooks, or a federal regulatory approach to get all U.S. states on the same page.

What can’t continue is a circling of the wagons on sports betting that pretends to keep gambling at bay when no such thing is happening.

Originally published here

THE US CONGRESS STANDS UP FOR APPLE AND CONSUMER PRIVACY EVERYWHERE

MARCH 13, 2025 | Today a bipartisan group of US lawmakers signed onto a joint letter calling on the UK’s government to immediately bring transparency to their upcoming hearing for Apple on March 14th. The American technology company has found themselves in a standoff with the UK’s Home Office, which demanded backdoor access to encrypted Apple iCloud data under the Investigatory Powers Act.

Stephen Kent of the Consumer Choice Center, an international consumer advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., London and Ottawa reacted to the letter from Congress:

“British authorities are actively harming their own people’s privacy and data security by pursuing backdoor access to Apple’s consumer encryption. The United States correctly sees this as a domestic threat, because a backdoor in the UK means a backdoor for access to Apple users’ cloud data everywhere.”

The demand by US Senators Ron Wyden and Alex Padilla, as well as Congressmen Andy Biggs, Warren Davidson and Zoe Lofgren, is that the UK make their March 14th hearing public so that its proceedings can be analyzed by cybersecurity experts and the US Congress.

“The US government has changed its tune in recent years on the issue of encryption. They went from being outright hostile to encryption like the kind Apple provides, over concerns about countering terrorism, to then realizing it was the only thing keeping consumers safe whatsoever from massive foreign hacks,” Kent continued.

Mike Salem of the Consumer Choice Center’s UK office told media in February about the clash between British authorities and Apple, saying “This marks a very sad day for the basic principle of consumer privacy in the 21st century, depriving users of the tools that leave UK citizens exposed to governments, criminals and malicious hackers. The fact this has been done without debate, oversight or advance warning to UK Apple users is extremely concerning.”

The Consumer Choice Center applauds Republicans and Democrats of the US Congress, as well as the Trump Administration, in their vocal defense of consumer privacy in the case of Apple vs the UK’s Home Office. We hope the Investigatory Powers Tribunal yields to the request of the US Congress and makes their hearing public, before taking steps to walk back this disastrous attack on encryption which has left UK consumers without the protection of Apple’s Advanced Data Protection tool.

###

FOR UK or US MEDIA QUERIES and INTERVIEWS PLEASE CONTACT:

Stephen Kent

Consumer Choice Center

stephen@consumerchoicecenter.org

President Trump Is Headed Toward a Tariff Backlash

FEB 28, 2025 | President Donald Trump’s pledge to enact sweeping 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico begins this Tuesday, March 4. While Trump’s team has used the threat of tariffs to extract concessions from foreign adversaries and allies alike, the notion of open trade war with America’s neighbors remains an unpopular one with most Americans, according to a new poll from Public First.

“This has a lot of potential to backfire on President Trump as his favorability gap shrinks” said Stephen Kent of the Consumer Choice Center, an international consumer advocacy group. “Americans certainly elected Donald Trump to reassert US strength around the world and to be extra pushy, but when only 28% of Americans express support for tariffs on Canadian imports it goes to show that American voters don’t see Canada as being an opponent of any kind.”

Asked why support for tariffs on Mexico is slightly more popular, with 35% of adults supportive, roughly ten percent above views about tariffs on Canada, Kent said,

“It’s pretty clear 2024 was an immigration election and Americans wanted to see Mexico brought to the table on restricting northbound migration and fentanyl trafficking. When Mexican President Sheinbaum put 10,000 more troops on the border in exchange for a delay of tariffs, that was the point.

But Americans still know that tariffs are ultimately a tax on their lifestyle and shopping lists.”

President Trump’s tariff threats have already injected uncertainty into markets and supply chains. After pausing the tariffs in February, the administration’s indecisiveness created confusion for businesses that rely on predictable trade policies. Imposing the 25% tariffs will only escalate tensions, raise consumer prices and distract from Americans’ top concern of trade imbalance with China.

Polling data from Public First, shared with POLITICO, underscores that tariffs are vastly more popular when it comes to China, with 45 percent of respondents supporting them versus 30 percent opposed.

“Americans aren’t going to like the result of tariffs on Chinese imports any more than they like the cost increases for basic car repairs in the US after 25% tariffs hit Canada, but the difference is that Donald Trump’s entire political career was based on renegotiating relations with China, not Canada,” added Stephen Kent of the Consumer Choice Center. “If these tariffs go into effect on March 4, I’d expect them to be short-lived. Trump likes to do popular things, and trade war in North America is already unpopular. Americans want to poke fun and enjoy some nationalistic fun when watching hockey games between Canada and the US, not when they’re shopping or trying to fill up their car.”

The Consumer Choice Center’s staff in Canada, Europe, and the US call on the Trump Administration to help make America and its allies prosperous by rejecting trade barriers which limit consumer freedom and purchasing power. Tariffs are not the way.

FOR MEDIA QUERIES OR INTERVIEWS PLEASE CONTACT:

Stephen Kent

Consumer Choice Center

stephen@consumerchoicecenter.org

###

DNI Director Gabbard Stands Up For Apple & Consumer Privacy

FEB 27, 2025 | Tulsi Gabbard, now U.S. Director of National Intelligence, has confirmed that U.S. officials and DNI lawyers are now reviewing whether the United Kingdom breached a bilateral treaty known as the CLOUD Act. Under the agreement, the UK is prohibited from demanding access to the data of U.S. citizens or individuals within U.S. borders.

Stephen Kent, Media Director for the Consumer Choice Center, an international consumer advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., reacted to news of Gabbard’s invoking the CLOUD Act:

“Gabbard is spot on in her defense of American consumers at home and abroad being threatened by the UK’s effort to break Apple’s encryption for users. The nature of consumer encryption tech is that if it’s broken anywhere, it’s broken everywhere. The UK is acting more like China and less like a democratic ally of the US.”

The UK’s Home Office demanded access to encrypted Apple iCloud data under the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA, which would create a “backdoor” for the UK to Apple’s encryption for all its consumers worldwide. As a result, Apple has opted to suspend its Advanced Data Protection encryption feature for UK users.

“This mode of thinking is why Europe was taken off guard last week by Vice President JD Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference. What Gabbard is pointing out in her defense of encryption is that an ally of the United States is trying to violate their citizens’ privacy in a way that compromises consumers in the United States,” Kent continued.

“The FBI under former Director Christopher Wray used to advocate for the same ‘backdoor’ access to encryption, but they’ve since changed their tune about encryption because of the rising threat of foreign data hacks, which pose huge risks to American consumers and companies.”

Cybersecurity analysts have long warned that any backdoor created for a government could eventually be discovered and misused by cybercriminals and hostile foreign actors. The UK’s push to weaken encryption disregards these risks, potentially exposing sensitive data to hackers and bad actors worldwide.

Kent concluded, “There are few consumer privacy issues as important in the world today as maintaining the integrity of encryption technology and services. The Trump Administration should pull no punches in letting Keir Starmer’s government know that this kind of ‘big brother’ behavior won’t be tolerated and makes our people worse off.”

FOR MEDIA QUERIES OR INTERVIEWS PLEASE CONTACT:

Stephen Kent

Consumer Choice Center

stephen@consumerchoicecenter.org

###

Mississippi can get it right on mobile sports betting

February 27, 2025
By Stephen Kent
In Recent Media, US Sports Betting Index
0 comments

For the second year in a row, the Mississippi House has advanced legislation to legalize mobile sports betting in the state. House Bill 1302, the Mississippi Mobile Sports Wagering Act, which includes a 12% tax on online sports wagers, addresses several concerns that doomed similar legislation in 2024 and provides for a $6 million fund to support brick-and-mortar casinos in the state, as well as critical infrastructure. Consumers want to place sports bets, the question for Mississippi is where they’ll allow residents to do it and how much illicit online betting they’re willing to accept before establishing a legal avenue.

The argument against mobile sports betting has always been split between shielding casino revenues and protecting consumers from the potential harms of gambling addiction. Chiefly, lawmakers worry that allowing people to wager from home will cut into the bottom line of the state’s brick-and-mortar casinos, which themselves are a bet by the state on tax revenue gains. This led to the inclusion of a provision in HB 1302 setting up a Retail Sports Wagering Protection Fund to cover shortfalls for casinos that experience dips in their annual revenue.

Mississippi already allows in-person sports betting as of 2018, meaning that the infrastructure exists for sportsbooks to partner with local casinos and offer mobile betting options under a new legal framework.

The demand is undeniable. A consumer report from Paysafe showed that amongst 1,700 sports betting consumers and those interested in betting, 65 percent were interested in mobile options versus 46 percent for in-person gambling. Since the start of the NFL season, Mississippi recorded 8.7 million attempts by residents to access legal mobile sportsbooks elsewhere.

This leads consumers into shady online interactions with offshore betting operations where data is not kept safe and credit cards are fair game for placing bets. This can be hugely damaging for consumers. The New York Times reported on how several New York gambling firms were illegally accepting lower-division football and basketball bets, and at least two states ignored credit card usage in the system.

Bad actors must be weeded out of these markets and legal frameworks are the first step.

The alternative is prohibition and turning a blind eye to what your people are doing in the absence of a regulated market. An effective regulatory regime accounts for the kind of consumer behavior lawmakers can reasonably anticipate and then keeps those people as safe as possible without removing adults’ right to make adult choices.

Like in Iowa & Tennessee, HB 1302 bars the use of credit cards in online bets, and requires age verification for players, a policy piloted by Pennsylvania & Michigan. The bill allows for up to two online betting services to partner with a local casino in order to operate. The $6 million protection fund exists to serve the smaller Mississippi casinos that might not acquire online betting partners.

Much has been done to account for consumer protection and the investments made in brick-and-mortar casinos in the state.

Rep. Casey Eure, who spearheaded the legislation, made it clear that HB 1302 was designed to respect the interests of brick-and-mortar casinos while bringing Mississippi into the modern era of sports betting. An overwhelming bipartisan approval of 88-10 in the House is nothing to balk at, and it keeps Mississippi proactive in managing a valuable tax revenue stream.

The region’s casinos are increasingly lucrative and a source of employment for nearly 50,000 Mississippians, but there’s a looming generational shadow that points toward young people being less likely to frequent physical casinos. It’s not that Millennials and Gen Z don’t bet, they do, they’re simply not on track to replace the older demographic typically found in a Biloxi casino at 10 PM on a Friday night.

Even conservative estimates suggest that Mississippi is losing between $40 million and $80 million annually in potential tax revenue by keeping mobile sports betting illegal. That’s revenue that could be improving roads, funding education, and strengthening local economies, particularly those with smaller casinos delivering less than anticipated tax revenue.

The future of sports betting and gaming is mobile, and real improvements have been made to the sports betting proposals on the table since 2024. The best outcome for Mississippi consumers is a regulated market that takes consumer protection seriously, involves buy-in from physical casinos and ultimately respects the right of every adult to make financial and entertainment choices for themselves.

Originally published here

The UK Wants a Backdoor into EVERYONE’S Apple Cloud Data

Hide your group chat history. The UK has demanded Apple build a backdoor to its encryption services, giving the British police full key access to any Apple consumer’s content stored on the cloud.

And yes that means Apple users everywhere. Not just specific British users, but you, me, and every boomer with an iPhone. And if they comply with the British on this, Apple won’t even be permitted to warn consumers that the security of data doesn’t include security from the British government.

Break Apple’s Encryption For All Its Users

The British government has served Apple with a Technical Capability Notice under the Investigatory Powers Act of 2016, also known as the Snoopers’ Charter—a fitting name, considering its intent. This law gives law enforcement the power to demand access to encrypted communications, overriding any security measures tech companies put in place.

But here’s the kicker: Apple wouldn’t even be allowed to warn its users that this is happening. We only know about this development because of leaks being reported by tech journalists at the Washington Post. This isn’t about targeting specific criminals with a warrant. The UK wants Apple to create a master key, a built-in vulnerability that would let the government unlock any iPhone’s cloud-stored content at will. And if Apple complies? The floodgates open.

Mike Salem of the Consumer Choice Center’s UK team put it well by saying,

“This is far beyond proportional as a response to national security threats, and sets an extremely dangerous precedent. Notices such as these will be served to other companies and other countries will want access to the same data the UK is trying to access. Crucially, it leaves all iCloud users in a vulnerable position, with information such as their personal details and photos exposed and un-encrypted, allowing criminals and foreign adversaries full access.”

Why Encryption Matters

Encryption is the bedrock of digital security.

At its most basic, it’s no different than when you’re in school and passing a note in class but every word is coded to mean something else so that the contents are a secret. See You After Class For Football Practice could be coded 10 thousand different ways and actually mean This Teacher Is Super Weird OMG Cringe. Like with ciphers or coded messages, letters are scrambled, but with digital encryption, the code – or key –for the note passed in class, changes after every single use. In the real world, that is the foundation of encrypted chat like WhatsApp, Signal, or iMessage on an Apple device or even HTTPS on your browser.

Governments have long been frustrated by this. Former FBI Director Christopher Wray once argued before Congress that they should legislate a ban on commercial and personal encryption to help law enforcement catch criminals. He later reversed his position to encryption being the best consumer bulwark against Chinese hacks. The argument is always the same: they need access to encrypted devices to investigate crimes.

What the UK Is Demanding

Here’s the problem—weakening encryption for one case weakens it for everyone. If Apple builds a backdoor for the UK government, it’s only a matter of time before other governments demand the same access. And once an encryption backdoor exists, it’s a security risk that bad actors could exploit.

Rather than requesting access to specific user data through proper legal channels, the UK government is demanding a built-in backdoor that would allow authorities to unlock and access any Apple user’s stored data at will.

Apple has long resisted such demands, particularly when it comes to iPhone security. The company introduced Advanced Data Protection (ADP) in 2022, allowing users to fully encrypt their iCloud backups—meaning not even Apple could access them. It was a long-awaited move, especially after the FBI pressured Apple to delay rolling it out years earlier during Trump’s presidency.

Most iPhone and Mac users don’t enable ADP, but those who do gain significantly stronger protections against hacking, unauthorized surveillance, and data breaches. If Apple complies with the UK’s order, this level of security could be erased overnight.

What Happens Next?

Right now, Apple is legally forbidden from confirming whether it received the UK’s demand. However, leaks suggest Apple’s likely response will be to end encrypted storage in the UK entirely rather than compromise its security model. That decision would impact millions of UK users, but it’s entirely in the hands of secretive review boards that Apple will be appealing to behind closed doors.

The Bigger Picture

This fight is part of a larger trend—governments worldwide are pushing for more control over encrypted services, whether it’s cloud storage, messaging apps, or even VPNs that let users bypass restrictive online regulations.

But here’s the reality: Apple knows that consumers expect privacy, and it has shown a willingness to fight for encryption when it matters. That’s why it’s crucial to speak up, vote with your wallet, and protect your data.

Enable Advanced Data Protection
Update your passwords regularly
Stay informed on digital privacy laws

Because once encryption is gone, it’s gone for good.

A Statement on the Kids Off Social Media Act

In response to today’s Senate Commerce Committee markup of S. 278, the Kids Off Social Media Act (KOSMA), the Consumer Choice Center (CCC) issued the following statement from Stephen Kent, Media Director at the CCC.

The Kids Off Social Media Act (KOSMA) isn’t just an overreach—it’s a direct assault on free expression and consumer privacy. A government-mandated social media ban for users under 13 is a blatant First Amendment violation, preventing minors from accessing even platforms where algorithms are used to curate age-appropriate experiences. The Supreme Court has already affirmed that minors have constitutional rights to information, as clarified in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011)—but KOSMA ignores that precedent entirely.

This bill also goes beyond banning young users—it restricts content recommendations for anyone under 17, forcing these users into chronological content feeds that don’t take into consideration their unique interests, background or demonstrated preferences. Sponsors of the bill point out that algorithms can systematically serve consumers harmful content, but appear unwilling to acknowledge that the opposite is also true. KOSMA’s approach doesn’t solve safety concerns; it just limits access to information and ties the hands of tech innovators to make customized experiences for consumers of different ages. Worse still, KOSMA pressures platforms into age verification measures that endanger user privacy. While the bill claims verification isn’t required, there’s no other way to comply—meaning platforms will be forced to collect sensitive personal data, exposing all users to potential breaches and government surveillance.

And where does this slippery slope end? If Washington can ban social media for kids today, what’s next? Restrictions on news sites, video streaming, or online gaming? Lawmakers should focus on real solutions—strengthening privacy protections and teaching digital literacy—rather than embracing censorship and surveillance. Protecting kids online should never come at the cost of their rights, but that’s exactly what KOSMA does.

Consumers Aren’t Protected By Virginia’s social media ‘KYC’ Law

To the Delegates of the Virginia General Assembly,

As a consumer advocacy group representing consumers and Internet users who favor tech innovation, lifestyle freedom, and freedom of choice, we write to you with reservations about the bill you are soon to consider.

HB1624 requires that social media networks identify their users to classify those under 18 years of age and require parental consent if said platforms provide what the legislation broadly declares are “addictive feeds”. The bill also restricts social media firms from offering alternative products to minors.

The goal of protecting children online and steering them toward healthy uses of technology and social media is an important and noble goal that we also champion.

However, due to the language in this bill and the effects it would have on practically all users of social media, the measure would cause more harm than good. HB1624 would have a worrying impact on the ability of anyone – minor or adult – to freely use certain social platforms and participate online.

Our concerns on this bill are summarized in four points:

1. PRIVACY

For social media providers to determine who is a minor, they will also be forced to determine who is an adult. The bill stipulates that covered platforms must use “commercially reasonable methods to determine that the user is not a minor”. This introduces more technical complexity to social media access, but also legally requires a Know Your Customer regime that is antithetical to a free and open Internet.

Suppose users are required to provide verifiably personal details to sign up for certain websites. In that case, this will remove a user’s ability to access social media websites without providing sensitive information including their name, date of birth, identity documents, facial recognition, address, and much more.

The Internet has evolved to be the global marketplace for ideas and content, bringing people together and allowing for the freedom to explore, connect, and learn. Forcing

users to provide private data scraps anonymity and privacy on the Internet, which may be required, necessary, or desired by the consumer. This is what’s most consistent with our own First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. The Supreme Court’s 2011 ruling in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association stands as a good example of young people’s right to receive information, whether it be from video games, chat rooms, or social media apps.

Online users should be able to use services or apps while providing or not providing whatever personal information they so choose, ensuring they can remain private and secure.

2. SECURITY

Because any platform using algorithmic feeds to deliver content would be required to collect personal and age-identifying information, it’s not difficult to see how attractive this data would be to potential hackers and bad actors. The more social media platforms a consumer uses, the worse this vulnerability would be for them.

The more that online services and state and federal regulations require users to submit online to access certain websites, the more risk there is of that information falling victim to coordinated hacks and unlawful disclosures. Any cursory search online can find hundreds of terabytes of hacked and leaked data that has been exposed, often due to lax security procedures or improper storage of data.

Though the legislation aims to outsource the process of age identification to a “commercially reasonable” method, there is no failsafe method for determining identity, storing that information, and ensuring it will not become accessible to the wider Internet. Requiring such a process by law does not render these systems hack-proof. Rather, it opens the floodgates and creates even more incentives for criminal activity online.

3. PARENTAL RIGHTS AND EDUCATION

Rather than government bureaucrats, it should be up to parents and guardians to guide their teenagers and educate them on how to use certain social media sites and applications. We applaud the notion of parental consent for minors accessing certain sites, but this should be a decision within households and independent of Virginia state statutes.

Forcing age identification for social media sites will impact every age group, therefore state resources could be better used to educate minors on the advantages and disadvantages of different social media activities and behaviors.

Parents should not have their roles or responsibilities curbed because of legislation that aims to do good for minors. We must ensure that Virginians have the freedom to choose how they educate and raise their children. Those parents and guardians are best suited to structure the technological needs and wants of their children. This bill undermines that.

4. A SETBACK FOR INNOVATION

Last, the process laid out in HB1624 restrains social media websites from creating any alternative experience on a social media app if a user is determined to be a minor.

What this means in practice is that any algorithm used in social media content delivery would be de facto restricted, and any social media platform would be prohibited from offering paid services, ad-free versions, or other alternatives to better suit select audiences. If this is carried through in Virginia, it would necessarily require social media networks to create different versions of apps or sites for Virginia residents – minor or adult – which creates an undue burden that many firms will actively avoid rather than attempt to comply with.

Rather than imposing age-gating on social media networks that will degrade and restrict the experience for users of all ages, we call on Virginia’s elected officials to consider alternative means to educate young people about social media and safety in the online world.

As consumer advocates, we at the Consumer Choice Center believe the answer to concerns about youth access to social media is not overly broad regulation that impacts users of all ages, but rather, developing guidance and educational resources that uphold the primary duty of care for parents and guardians.

Protecting kids online is a noble goal worthy of praise.

However, in its current form, HB1624 and its counterpart in SB854, are untenable and would ultimately make Virginia residents worse off.

Sincerely yours,

Stephen Kent (Manassas, VA)

Media Director

Letter to HHS: Concerns Regarding ICCPUD Alcohol Intake & Health Report

January 24, 2025
By Stephen Kent
In Alcohol, Dietary Guidelines, Press Release
0 comments

Today the Consumer Choice Center submitted a formal comment to the Department of Health and Human Services to express our sincere concern about bias in the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD) Alcohol Intake and Health (AIH) report, which could impact the 2025-20230 US Dietary Guidelines. Consumers need the best available information and clearly communicated, in-context summation of risks associated with alcohol, and the ICCPUD failed to do this, as CCC has previously made known.

HHS-CCC-Kent-Response (1)Download

OR MEDIA QUESTIONS OR INTERVIEWS CONTACT:

Stephen Kent

Media Director, Consumer Choice Center

stephen@consumerchoicecenter.org

###

Banning red food dye is not going to save children

As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. navigates Capitol Hill this week to meet with senators about his nomination to head up the Department of Health and Human Services in the Trump administration, there will be a lot of conversation about ways to “make America healthy again.” Unfortunately, people should brace for a flurry of articles using the language “linked to” to imply a direct connection between certain foods, additives, and dyes and poor health outcomes. It’s a common form of misdirection media love to use to stoke fear and limit people’s choices.

In 2023, there was a period of several weeks dedicated by the media to the supposed dangers of aspartame, based on a classification by an affiliate of the World Health Organization that declared aspartame “possibly carcinogenic.” The report kickstarted a frenzy to ban the common artificial sweetener deemed safe for consumption by the United States, Canada, and the European Union that would terrify any casual consumer of diet sodas.

It shouldn’t. The research on aspartame’s “link” to cancer hinges on an individual consumer weighing 132 pounds and drinking 12 to 36 cans of diet soda in one day to reach the threshold for meaningful risk.

Read the full text here

FDA’s Ban on Red Dye No.3 Defies Scientific Evidence

January 15, 2025
By Stephen Kent
In Dietary Guidelines, FDA, Press Release
0 comments

Today the FDA issued a highly anticipated ban on Red Dye No. 3 as a color additive for food and ingested drugs. In their public statement, the FDA says in the same span of 295 words that Red No. 3 is being banned for representing a threat to public health, while also saying “there is no evidence showing FD&C Red No. 3 causes cancer in humans.“

Stephen Kent, an analyst for the Consumer Choice Center (CCC), an international consumer advocacy group, said of the FDA action:

“These color additives are in food and medicines for a reason, and it’s because consumers by-in-large enjoy the products more when they’re aesthetically pleasing. The campaign against Red No. 3 has been a scientific empty vessel from the start. Proponents of this ban will say that it’s not a big deal to have cereal, frozen treats and cupcakes be less colorful when public health is at stake, but they’ve failed to show evidence of harm and have instead relied on misinformation campaigns by social media influencers to frighten the public,” said Stephe Kent.

The FDA is relying on enforcing the Delaney Clause, enacted in 1960 as part of the Color Additives Amendment to the FD&C Act, which prohibits FDA authorization of a food additive or color additive if it has been found to induce cancer in humans or animals.

The ban takes effect in January 2027, offering further evidence of the lack of emergency or public health impact of these common additives on consumers.

Kent continued, “You could argue the FDA is simply enforcing the law as it is written. When rats were exposed to the dye at extraordinarily high levels, cancer was a result – but it simply isn’t the case in human beings, and they know it. So the law needs to be changed and the public needs better information about the known risks. Red Dye No. 3 isn’t harmful, so we’re just going to have less visually appealing goods because of a law from 1960.”

Read more about the Red No. 3 debate from the CCC

Washington Examiner

Newsmax Online

Bill Wirtz of the Consumer Choice Center told Newsmax prior to the FDA ban, “Here’s the crucial point to consider: The word “linked” does a lot of heavy lifting here because this particular dye only affected rats that were given unusually high doses in scientific studies. One could write at length about the reliability of animal studies and what they really mean for humans, but the mere fact that the doses were much higher than what even a human would consume shows us that environmental activists do not understand the concept of dosage. Too much of anything will be bad for you — in fact, “too much” describes quite literally the exact quantity that is excessive. For instance, this is equally true for glyphosate residues in beer or aspartame sweetener in Diet Coke. You would need to drink 264 gallons of beer for the glyphosate to adversely affect you or gulp down 36 cans of sugar-free Coke for the aspartame to be bad for you.”

OR MEDIA QUESTIONS OR INTERVIEWS CONTACT:

Stephen Kent

Media Director, Consumer Choice Center

stephen@consumerchoicecenter.org

###

Author: Stephen Kent

State Bans on Sports Betting Are Not Helping Anybody

THE US CONGRESS STANDS UP FOR APPLE AND CONSUMER PRIVACY EVERYWHERE

President Trump Is Headed Toward a Tariff Backlash

FOR MEDIA QUERIES OR INTERVIEWS PLEASE CONTACT:

DNI Director Gabbard Stands Up For Apple & Consumer Privacy

Mississippi can get it right on mobile sports betting

The UK Wants a Backdoor into EVERYONE’S Apple Cloud Data

Break Apple’s Encryption For All Its Users

Why Encryption Matters

What the UK Is Demanding

What Happens Next?

The Bigger Picture

Letter to HHS: Concerns Regarding ICCPUD Alcohol Intake & Health Report

Banning red food dye is not going to save children

FDA’s Ban on Red Dye No.3 Defies Scientific Evidence

Follow us

WASHINGTON

BRUSSELS

LONDON

KUALA LUMPUR

OTTAWA