Empower Parents Not Bureaucrats with Kids’ Online

Originally published on Substack. 

A growing number of lawmakers are convinced they’ve found the culprit behind rising teen anxiety and depression: the smartphone.

Much of that momentum traces back to the work of Jonathan Haidt, especially in his book, The Anxious Generation, which argues that the rapid adoption of smartphones and social media has rewired childhood and driven a mental health crisis.

It’s a compelling narrative. It’s also incomplete.

Correlation is not causation. And building sweeping public policy around a single explanatory variable—“the phone did it”—is a serious mistake.

The Data Question We’re Not Asking

Yes, teen depression has risen over the past decade. But so have other major disruptions:

• Prolonged COVID lockdowns and school closures
• Social isolation during critical developmental years
• Increased academic pressure and social comparison
• Family instability
• Inflation and economic uncertainty
• Cultural fragmentation and declining in-person community

Smartphones were present. So were all of those forces.

Even within academic research, the strength of the link between social media use and mental health varies.

Some studies find modest associations. Others find effects that shrink considerably when controlling for broader factors.

That doesn’t invalidate Haidt’s concerns. It simply means the causal chain is far more complex than a single device.

Public policy that assumes monocausality in a multivariable world usually backfires.

States Racing Ahead Anyway

Despite these open questions, states are moving fast.

In Wisconsin, Assembly Bill 962 would require app stores to verify user ages and obtain parental consent before minors download apps. A Senate companion, SB 937, has also been introduced.

In Colorado, SB26-051 is advancing in the Senate Business, Labor, & Technology Committee.

In Georgia, SB 467 would impose age verification and parental consent requirements statewide.

In South Dakota, HB 1275 introduces strict verification mandates.

In Alabama, HB 161 has already passed the Senate with amendments setting an effective date of January 2027 and is moving toward final action.

Other states are in motion as well. In Florida, SB 1722 advanced out of the Senate Commerce and Tourism Committee. In Virginia, SB 237 was continued to the 2027 session for further study.

The common thread: lawmakers are mandating App Store (think Apple or Google app stores)–level age verification systems as a frontline solution to youth mental health concerns.

That leap—from social science debate to sweeping compliance regime—deserves scrutiny.

What These Bills Actually Do

These proposals don’t simply encourage parental involvement. They require app stores to build age-verification infrastructure that may include digital ID systems, sensitive data collection, and centralized permission frameworks.

That creates several problems.

First, privacy.

Verifying age at scale often means collecting government IDs or other personal data. That information must be stored, secured, and protected. Data breaches are not hypothetical—they are routine.

Second, speech.

Age-verification systems can burden lawful access to information. Courts have historically treated such requirements cautiously when they chill First Amendment–protected activity.

Third, competition.

Compliance costs disproportionately favor the largest tech platforms. Smaller developers and startups will struggle to navigate a patchwork of state mandates. Ironically, policies framed as curbing “Big Tech” may entrench it.

And none of this directly proves the underlying premise—that restricting app downloads will materially improve teen mental health outcomes.

The Better Question

If the goal is to empower families, why not focus directly on parents?

Device-level parental controls already exist and continue to improve. Platforms can increase transparency tools without mandatory ID regimes.

Schools can integrate digital literacy education. Law enforcement can target unlawful exploitation and abuse directly. Florida is already championing this approach.

Those approaches strengthen families without constructing centralized verification systems.

The uncomfortable truth is that no statute replaces engaged parenting. No compliance checklist solves cultural fragmentation or social isolation.

Smartphones are tools. Like any tool, they can be misused. But they are also gateways to education, creativity, entrepreneurship, and connection.

Reducing a complex mental health trend to a single device risks misdiagnosing the problem—and institutionalizing the wrong solution.

Slow Down Before You Regulate

When multiple states rush into digital ID mandates based on contested correlations, litigation is almost inevitable. Policy reversals are messy. Infrastructure, once built, rarely shrinks.

Protecting children is a legitimate public concern. But good intentions do not justify poorly designed mandates.

Lawmakers should ask harder questions:

• Is the causal evidence strong enough to justify statewide ID systems?
• Are we unintentionally entrenching dominant platforms?
• Are we substituting government mandates for parental authority?

The answer to teen mental health challenges will not be found in a single bill number.

Before turning smartphones into the villain, policymakers should remember a simple principle: complex social problems rarely yield to simple regulatory fixes.

Empower parents. Encourage innovation. Protect constitutional boundaries.

That’s a more durable path than central planning disguised as child protection.