PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 26, 2025
Shielding Children's Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net Act or the SCREEN ActThis bill establishes age-verification requirements for commercial interactive computer services (e.g., websites) that make available content that is harmful to minors (e.g., content that appeals to the prurient interest in nudity or sex, is obscene, or is child pornography).Specifically, the bill requires such services to adopt and utilize technology verification measures to ensure that (1) users of the service are not minors, and (2) minors are prevented from accessing any content on the service that is harmful to minors.Additionally, such services must (1) use the technology to verify a user's age; (2) publish the verification process that the service uses; and (3) subject users' Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, including known virtual proxy network (VPN) IP addresses, to the technology verification measures, unless the service determines a user is not located within the United States.Covered services also must implement data security measures to protect information about individuals collected through the verification process.The Federal Trade Commission must conduct regular audits of such services, issue guidance, and otherwise enforce the requirements of this bill.
People & committees
Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15] · R–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Sep 2, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1623 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1623 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1623 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1623 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-26 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed SCREEN Act would require age checks on online services that regularly create, host, or make available certain sexual content with the aim of earning a profit, including content posted by users. Covered services would have to keep minors from using them and protect information collected for age verification. The Federal Trade Commission would audit compliance and enforce the requirements. The age-check requirement would begin one year after enactment.
in the regular course of the trade or business of the entity to create, host, or make available content that meets the definition of harmful to minors under paragraph (4) and that is provided by the entity, a user, or other information content provider, with the objective of earning a profit
Beginning on the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, a covered platform shall adopt and utilize technology verification measures on the platform to ensure that— (1) users of the covered platform are not minors
establish, implement, and maintain reasonable data security
conduct regular audits of covered platforms to ensure compliance with the requirements of section 4
The Commission shall enforce section 4
The term Commission means the Federal Trade Commission.
Section 1 names the proposal the Shielding Children's Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net Act, or SCREEN Act.
This Act may be cited as the Shielding Children's Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net Act or the SCREEN Act.
Section 2 presents Congress's proposed rationale: it asserts that filtering software has been ineffective and that age-verification technology can protect minors without excessive burdens. It also declares that requiring protective technology is the least restrictive way to achieve its stated interest. These are the proposal's findings and policy positions, not independently established effects or a court ruling on this bill.
such technology has proven to be ineffective in protecting minors from accessing online pornographic content
The evolution of our technology has now enabled the use of age verification technology that is cost efficient, not unduly burdensome, and can be operated narrowly in a manner that ensures only adults have access to a website’s online pornographic content.
It is the sense of Congress that—
requiring interactive computer services that are in the business of creating, hosting, or making available pornographic content to enact technological measures that shield minors from accessing pornographic content on their platforms is the least restrictive means for Congress to achieve its compelling government interest.
Coverage would apply to online services meeting the referenced legal definition that engage in interstate or foreign commerce, or deliberately serve the U.S. market or part of it. Regularly handling qualifying content for a profit-seeking purpose would trigger coverage whether the content comes from the service, a user, or another provider.
means an entity— (i) that is an interactive computer service; (ii) that— (I) is engaged in interstate or foreign commerce; or (II) purposefully avails itself of the United States market or a portion thereof; and (iii) for which it is in the regular course of the trade or business of the entity to create, host, or make available content that meets the definition of harmful to minors under paragraph (4) and that is provided by the entity, a user, or other information content provider, with the objective of earning a profit
A service could be covered even if it earns no profit from the qualifying content, and even if that content is neither its main business nor its only income source.
includes an entity described in subparagraph (A) regardless of whether— (i) the entity earns a profit on the activities described in subparagraph (A)(iii); or (ii) creating, hosting, or making available content that meets the definition of harmful to minors under paragraph (4) is the sole source of income or principal business of the entity.
The definition of content “harmful to minors” covers visual depictions meeting all three conditions: appealing to minors' prurient interest—an excessive sexual interest—in nudity, sex, or excretion; depicting specified sexual conduct or a lewd display of genitals in a clearly offensive way for minors; and lacking serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors when taken as a whole. Obscene material and child pornography are separate routes into the definition.
with respect to a picture, image, graphic image file, film, videotape, or other visual depiction
(A) (i) taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to the prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion; (ii) depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or lewd exhibition of the genitals; and (iii) taken as a whole, lacks serious, literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as to minors; (B) is obscene; or (C) is child pornography.
The proposal borrows existing statutory definitions for “minor,” “child pornography,” the covered types of online services and content providers, and specified sexual conduct. Those outside definitions are not reproduced in the bundle.
The terms child pornography and minor have the meanings given those terms in section 2256 of title 18, United States Code.
The terms information content provider and interactive computer service have the meanings given those terms in section 230(f) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)).
The terms sexual act and sexual contact have the meanings given those terms in section 2246 of title 18, United States Code.
Qualifying verification technology would have to determine whether a user is more likely than not to be a minor. Its definition also requires preventing minors from accessing any content on a covered platform.
technology that— (A) employs a system or process to determine whether it is more likely than not that a user of a covered platform is a minor; and (B) prevents access by minors to any content on a covered platform.
Beginning one year after enactment, covered platforms would have to use verification technology to ensure their users are not minors and to prevent minors from accessing harmful content.
Beginning on the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, a covered platform shall adopt and utilize technology verification measures on the platform to ensure that— (1) users of the covered platform are not minors; and (2) minors are prevented from accessing any content on the covered platform that is harmful to minors.
Simply asking users to confirm that they are not minors would be insufficient. Platforms would have to use age-verification technology and publicly explain their verification process.
(1) Use a technology verification measure in order to verify a user's age. (2) Provide that requiring a user to confirm that the user is not a minor shall not be sufficient to satisfy the requirement of subsection (a). (3) Make publicly available the verification process that the covered platform is employing to comply with the requirements under this Act.
Verification would apply to all users' Internet Protocol addresses—the network addresses used for internet connections—including known virtual proxy network addresses. An exception would apply when the platform determines, using available technology, that a user is outside the United States.
Subject the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, including known virtual proxy network IP addresses, of all users of a covered platform to the technology verification measure described in paragraph (1) unless the covered platform determines based on available technology that a user is not located within the United States.
Platforms could choose their verification technology, subject to the bill's requirements. They could hire outside providers, but doing so would not remove their own legal duties or liability.
A covered platform may choose the specific technology verification measures to employ for purposes of complying with subsection (a), provided that the technology verification measure employed by the covered platform meets the requirements of subsection (b) and prohibits a minor from accessing the platform or any information on the platform that is obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors.
A covered platform may contract with a third party to employ technology verification measures for purposes of complying with subsection (a) but the use of such a third party shall not relieve the covered platform of its obligations under this Act or from liability under this Act.
Protected verification data would include information identifying or reasonably linkable to a person, directly or through a device, that meets the bill's access-request and verification-purpose conditions.
information that— (A) identifies, is linked to, or is reasonably linkable to an individual or a device that identifies, is linked to, or is reasonably linkable to an individual; (B) is collected or processed for the purpose of fulfilling a request by an individual to access any content on a covered platform; and (C) is collected and processed solely for the purpose of utilizing a technology verification measure and meeting the obligations imposed under this Act.
Section 4 would not require platforms to give the Federal Trade Commission information identifying or reasonably linkable to users or their devices. This provision limits what the section requires; it does not itself state a blanket ban on disclosure.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a covered platform to submit to the Commission any information that identifies, is linked to, or is reasonably linkable to a user of the covered platform or a device that identifies, is linked to, or is reasonably linkable to a user of the covered platform.
Platforms would have to maintain reasonable security for verification data collected by themselves or their contractors, protecting its confidentiality, integrity, accessibility, and security against unauthorized access. They could retain it only as long as reasonably necessary for verification or minimally necessary to demonstrate compliance.
establish, implement, and maintain reasonable data security to— (A) protect the confidentiality, integrity, and accessibility of technology verification measure data collected by the covered platform or a third party employed by the covered platform; and (B) protect such technology verification measure data against unauthorized access
retain the technology verification measure data for no longer than is reasonably necessary to utilize a technology verification measure or what is minimally necessary to demonstrate compliance with the obligations under this Act.
In enforcing the requirements, the Federal Trade Commission would have to consult people with expertise in software, child safety or services for exploited minors, consumer protection and privacy, age-verification products, and data security and encryption. Consultation would include standards and measurements for deciding whether users are not minors.
In enforcing the requirements under section 4, the Commission shall consult with the following individuals, including with respect to the applicable standards and metrics for making a determination on whether a user of a covered platform is not a minor
(1) Individuals with experience in computer science and software engineering. (2) Individuals with experience in— (A) advocating for online child safety; or (B) providing services to minors who have been victimized by online child exploitation. (3) Individuals with experience in consumer protection and online privacy. (4) Individuals who supply technology verification measure products or have expertise in technology verification measure solutions. (5) Individuals with experience in data security and cryptography.
The Federal Trade Commission would have to audit platforms regularly, publish audit terms and procedures, and specify the evidence needed to demonstrate compliance. Its submission process would have to request only documents or materials necessary to ensure full compliance.
(1) conduct regular audits of covered platforms to ensure compliance with the requirements of section 4; (2) make public the terms and processes for the audits conducted under paragraph (1), including the processes for any third party conducting an audit on behalf of the Commission
(3) establish a process for each covered platform to submit only such documents or other materials as are necessary for the Commission to ensure full compliance with the requirements of section 4 when conducting audits under this section; and (4) prescribe the appropriate documents, materials, or other measures required to demonstrate full compliance with the requirements of section 4.
The Federal Trade Commission would have to issue compliance guidance within 180 days after enactment.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall issue guidance to assist covered platforms in complying with the requirements of section 4.
The guidance would not create rights or bind the agency or other people to its recommended approach. Enforcement actions and consent orders—agreed enforcement resolutions—would require an alleged violation of the Act itself, rather than merely conduct inconsistent with guidance.
No guidance issued by the Commission with respect to this Act shall confer any rights on any person, State, or locality, nor shall operate to bind the Commission or any person to the approach recommended in such guidance.
In any enforcement action brought pursuant to this Act, the Commission shall allege a specific violation of a provision of this Act. The Commission may not base an enforcement action on, or execute a consent order based on, practices that are alleged to be inconsistent with any such guidelines, unless the practices allegedly violate a provision of this Act.
Violations of section 4 would be treated as violations of a Federal Trade Commission rule against unfair or deceptive practices. Enforcement would use the Federal Trade Commission Act's authority, penalties, and legal protections, while preserving the agency's other authority. The proposal does not state a dollar amount for penalties.
A violation of section 4 shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
The Commission shall enforce section 4 in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this title.
Any person who violates section 4 shall be subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and immunities provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.).
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the authority of the Commission under any other provision of law.
Within two years after the age-verification compliance deadline, the Comptroller General would have to report to Congress on effectiveness, compliance, data security, and behavioral, economic, psychological, and societal effects. The report would also include any recommendations for better enforcement or legislative changes.
Not later than 2 years after the date on which covered platforms are required to comply with the requirement of section 4(a), the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to Congress a report
(1) an analysis of the effectiveness of the technology verification measures required under such section; (2) an analysis of rates of compliance with such section among covered platforms; (3) an analysis of the data security measures used by covered platforms in the age verification process; (4) an analysis of the behavioral, economic, psychological, and societal effects of implementing technology verification measures; (5) recommendations to the Commission on improving enforcement of section 4(a), if any; and (6) recommendations to Congress on potential legislative improvements to this Act, if any.
The severability clause would preserve the remaining provisions and other applications of the Act if a provision, or its application to a particular person or circumstance, were held unconstitutional.
If any provision of this Act, or the application of such a provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remaining provisions of this Act, and the application of such provisions to any other person or circumstance, shall not be affected thereby.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated September 2, 2026, records introduction and committee referrals on February 26, 2025. It also records a December 11, 2025 subcommittee markup and forwarding to the full committee by voice vote with an amended substitute—a replacement text. The bundle supplies the introduced text, not that substitute.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-02T08:06:42Z.
2025-12-11: Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Voice Vote. 2025-12-11: Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
2025-02-26: Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade. 2025-02-26: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2025-02-26: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-26. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish formal earmark status or absence in other materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit or special carve-out warranting a finding was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 2, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI