Hearings to examine how social media verdicts demand federal action.

Good afternoon. Thank you all for being here. Senator Klobuchar will be in the room in just a moment. And this subcommittee on privacy, technology and the law will come to order. And today we're going to examine the landmark verdicts out of Los Angeles and New Mexico that prove what so many of us have known for years, that social media companies intentionally designed their platforms to addict our children and to profit from our children. When our children are on those platforms, they are the product. For too long, families who sought justice were turned away at the courthouse doors as big tech CEOs hid behind the shield of section two thirty. parents could not get the accountability they deserved. We have held big tech CEOs in front of congressional committees and held hearings with courageous whistleblowers, like the hearings Senator Klobuchar and I held last year with two whistleblowers who provided testimony under oath that meta-suppressed child safety research and profited from what one user called the pedophile kingdom. While big tech continues acting with impunity, parents and families have not stopped fighting for children across this entire nation. The tide is beginning to turn and these recent verdicts signal a shift. Courts are beginning to conclude that protecting our children online is not a content issue indeed it is a platform design issue. These social media platforms are designed to capture our child's attention, maximize the engagement, and profit off what I call their virtual you. And big tech has zero remorse for how this harms children. They have zero respect for the child. We will also hear about Mark Zuckerberg's testimony in the LA trial. And let's be clear, for years, Metta has done everything in its power to keep Mister Zuckerberg from the witness stand, and after his testimony in this case, we know why. He has lied to Congress for years, whether it was about Metta's goal to increase screen time or about Metta's own internal research showing that there was a negative correlation between social media use and teen mental health. One thing is abundantly clear. Meta's record when it comes to protecting children online is indefensible. And these are not the only cases moving forward in federal court. Thousands of cases, many as part of the multi-district litigation involving State Attorneys General and school districts detail just how deep the rot is at these companies. But these court cases alone are not enough because while courts can punish past harms, it is up to Congress to prevent future harm to our children. That's why Congress must pass my Kids Online Safety Act. The bill simply ensures that on-line platforms are designed with safety in mind for our nation's children. That's it. It is a simple bill. And it's incredibly telling that social media companies have spent tens of millions of dollars to defeat COSA and any other regulation to protect children on-line. In the first quarter of twenty twenty-six, Meta and Google hired one lobbyist for every six members of Congress. One lobbyist for every six members of Congress. Think about that. I want to call attention to the fact that there are two parents here with us who lost their children due to Big Tech's exploitation, while hundreds of Big Tech lobbyists who are actively working to stop COSA and other child safety legislation hide in boardrooms across this city. Ms. Bogart, Ms. Noring are here to tell their stories and urge Congress to finally take some action and the American people are paying attention to this issue. I also want to take a moment to thank the parents that are here with us and in the audience today. Uh their stories are so compelling and their help in passing the Kids Online Safety Act is so appreciated and I know we're not going to stop until we get this to President Trump's desk this year. I look forward to the testimony and uh I recognize the ranking member.

Thank you very much, Chair Blackburn, for holding today's hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for being here. You, Miss Bogart, thank you very much for being here. I'm sure this is difficult. And um, Bridget Norring, uh, who I've gotten to know very well. She's from Minnesota and, uh, in your son's name, have just been, uh, an incredible advocate for other families, both nationally and in our state. Thank you. Um, so here's the issue. As the chairman explained, uh, social media company algorithms are designed to keep people online as long as possible, and collect information, and then sell as many advertisements as possible. And sadly, all of that has also include kids and very young kids. According to a study, social media platforms generated eleven billion in revenue in twenty twenty-two from advertising directed at children and teenagers, including nearly two billion in ad profits derived from users age twelve and under. To protect the profits, the companies often design their platforms in ways that actually increase teen addiction. And then of course these platforms become prey to predators, people that are pushing sexual exploitation, people that are pushing harmful content, from eating disorders and provide venues, as we know in several cases, for dealers to sell deadly drugs like fentanyl. One parent told me that her child's social media use was like a water faucet on full blast. The water was overflowing while she is sitting out there with a mop, trying to wipe it up, trying to figure out how to get her child off of one platform, going to her eldest child to try to get advice on what to do when they find a new platform. And for so many parents, like the two that are before us today, to testify, uh there are permanent tragic consequences. Bridget lost her teenage son after he took a fentanyl-based pill that he believed was Percocet purchased through social media. Joanne lost her teenage son after he tried the blackout challenge that he saw online. That's why parents, victims, and state attorneys general have been standing up to hold these platforms accountable and protect others from enduring the pain that they have gone through themselves. In the face of their grief, they are suing social media companies for the harms their platforms have caused. We've had two significant cases, just recently, in a Bellwether case that may shape how thousands of others are resolved. The California jury found Meta and YouTube were negligent in how they designed their and liable for damaging the mental health of a young girl who frequently felt that she simply couldn't break away. The state of New Mexico won its case against Meta alleging that the company, quote, " knowingly exposes children to the twin harms of sexual exploitation and mental health harm" three hundred seventy-five million dollars in damages. These courtroom victories are incredibly important. but they cannot be an excuse for complacency. We must continue to empower victims, opening the courtroom door. I've been a long-time supporter of, after finally deciding that we wouldn't be able to uh pass a bunch of the laws I wanted to pass of getting rid of section two thirty or at least reforming it. And even with some of these victories, uh the companies have continued to block changes in Congress. Meta even used its power as a dominant dominant provider of online advertising to hide legitimate advertisements by lawyers informing parents and kids of the harms of social media. Senator Cruz and I have teamed up and passed the Take It Down Act. We're literally coming up this next week on the time at which the platforms will be held accountable if they don't take either real images of non-consensual porn or AI created images down. We already have criminal prosecutions against those that have spread this trash, uh that have been successful. Congress also needs to pass, and Senator Blackburn and I were together uh with uh Senator Blumenthal and Cruz yesterday with a group of parents, the Senate's version of the Kids Online Safety Act, COSA, to ensure that the platforms design their products to prevent mitigate harms. Senator Blumenthal and Blackburn's bill, it passed the Senate on a ninety-one three vote last Congress. and it needs to be taken up and passed immediately. There are vital issues to get right, but we cannot allow children to continue to be in harm's way every time they pick up a smartphone or tablet while we drag our feet on reform. It is time to stop talking about the problem and do something. I look forward to hearing about the witnesses. Thank you.

Mister Chairman, you're recognized.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair Blackburn. uh for uh holding this hearing. This is a very important hearing and I think with the vast audience we have proves the importance of the issue and you've been a leading voice in protecting children from uh, social media harm. The recent verdicts against social media companies relating to addictive platforms makes very clear that Congress must take meaningful action to protect kids online. And that meaningful action must include oversight and legislation. That's why I've introduced a multiple of bipartisan bills in this area, including sentencing accountability for exploitation act, the ending coercion of children and harm online act, and the Stop Sex Torture Act. And I've done this with ranking member Durbin of the full Judiciary Committee. I've also joined Senator Graham in introducing a legislation that would repeal section two thirty immunity, that big tech companies have had since nineteen ninety six. These bipartisan bills are aimed to hold violent criminals. accountable in combat online child exploitation. In February nineteenth, twenty twenty five and December ninth, twenty twenty five, I held a hearing of the full Judiciary Committee on Child Safety in Digital Area and Protecting Kids Against Online Exploitation. And for over a year, myself and Senators Blackburn and Hawley, have investigated Meta on April fourteenth twenty five and April sixteenth twenty twenty five I wrote to Meta in those letters I raised questions about Meta's reported efforts to silence whistleblowers former Meta employees blew the whistle on Meta's employment agreements the company's ties to China potential violation of the foreign corrupt practices act and the company's alleged practices of targeting vulnerable teenagers. In those letters, I raised questions and made r record uh public regarding meta's use of targeted ads towards teenagers and then on September twi second of twenty twenty five and September tenth of the same year, I along with Senators Blackburn and Hawley sent letters additionally uh to uh Meta. In those letters we raised concern about the use of targeted advertisements, protecting teens on their platforms, and compliance with the Federal Trade Commission's orders and the Child Children's Online Privacy Protective Act. We also noted the whistleblower disclosures and public reporting concerns about the company's interaction with the Chinese Communist Party and the data, privacy and security measures on WhatsApp. We raised additional questions about how Meta used th their generative artificial intelligence platforms targeting kids to date Meta has failed to fully comply with our investigative demands. So on March eleventh of this year, we sent Metta the following up letter. In that letter, we raised new concerns about public reporting and court court filings stating that Metta misled the public about the risks associated with their products. However, Meta isn't the only company that must address how they're protecting our kids online. The public deserves to know how these companies are protecting kids from risks related to their platforms. This committee's efforts on these important matters will continue. Thank you, Chair. Blackboard.

Senator Darbin.

Madam Chair, I'm sorry that I'm late, there was another hearing upstairs, and I'm gonna ask my introductory statement to be placed in the record and say two things. Wanna change the situation, wanna make it happen soon. Two things we can do, repeal section two thirty, number one. Number two, give every American family access to courts to enf- enforce the protection of their children. You're gonna see things happen dramatically if we do those two things. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh, thank you, Senator Durbin. And to our witnesses, Miss Rachel Lanier is Managing Attorney of the Lanier Law Firm, a member of the trial team and served as co-counsel in the social media addiction lawsuit legal team that secured a six million dollar verdict against Meta and YouTube. She focuses on holding social media companies accountable for their harmful addictive features. Particularly those that impact vulnerable children and teens. Miss Lanier has been named one of the five hundred leading plaintiff consumer lawyers best lawyers for mass tort and personal injury litigation, and top forty under forty civil plaintiff lawyer by national trial lawyers. Miss Joanne Bogart tragically lost her fifteen year old son Mason in twenty nineteen a viral social media trend targeting young people online. As a mother and an employee of Indiana's second largest school district, she pioneered the passage of Mason's Education Act, which was signed into Indiana state law in twenty twenty four. Her advocacy in media literacy has helped schools implement the tools and resources to teach kids how to stay safe online. She is also a volunteer for Fair Play's Screen Time Action Network, and a member of Parents for Safe Online Spaces. Doctor Mary Graal Leary is a professor of law at the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, where she directs its modern prosecution program. Doctor Leary is a former federal prosecutor and has worked on issues addressing the abuse and of women and children, child pornography, sex trafficking, technology and family violence. She serves as chair of the US Sentencing Commission's Victim Advocacy Group, was the former deputy director for the Office of Legal Counsel at NCMEC, and the former director of the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse. Ms. Bridget Noring, also comes before us today as a mother who tragically lost her nineteen year old son, Devin, in twenty twenty after he unknowingly purchased a prescription drug through Snapchat that contained fentanyl. She was in the room in twenty twenty five when President Trump signed the Halt Fentanyl Act into law which permanently classified fentanyl related substances as schedule one drugs under the controlled substance act. She continues to be a leading voice in combating the fentanyl crisis and advocating to protect children in the virtual space. I'd like to ask each of you to rise, raise your right hand. Let me swear you in. Do you swear or affirm that the statements you are about to give are the truth? the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help you God.

I'm here.

Thank you. All answered in the affirmative. All right, Miss Lanier, we are coming to you first for your five minute testimony.

Chairwoman Blackburn, Ranking Member Klobuchar, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Meta and YouTube built features into their platforms to work like slot machines engineered to hijack the developing brains of children. For the first time in history, an American jury looked at two of the most powerful technology companies in the world and delivered a message. "What you've done to our children is unacceptable." I was in that courtroom and I'm here to tell you what the jury saw and why it matters. My name is Rachel Lanier. I'm a trial lawyer and I serve as Managing Attorney of our Los Angeles office. I tried the KGM versus Metagoogle case, the first social media addiction case ever decided by an American jury, alongside my own family members, my father, Mark Lanier, my sister, Sarah Lanier, and our diligent trial team. As a parent to four, including two teenagers, the evidence that I saw in that case keeps me up at night. First, children's brains are being hijacked and big tech designed it that way. Children are the future of America, and their brains are being changed by these companies, not for the better. Meta and others operate in what they call the attention economy. Their entire business model depends on keeping your child's eyes on their apps as long as possible, because attention means money. Our client Kaylee started using YouTube at age six and Instagram at age nine. By the time she was a teen, she was struggling with depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, and suicidal ideation. She is not alone. She's one of millions. The evidence revealed platform features were engineered to tap into the brain's reward systems. Infinite scroll, removing natural stopping points, algorithmic feeds optimized for engagement, push notifications, time to reel children back in. Deliberate design choices built to maximize time on the app, because that means more advertising revenue and data harvesting. These platforms cause neurological harm to developing minds. The science supports it, and so does the inc- the company's own internal research. Second, the companies chose growth in profit over child safety. Mark Zuckerberg told this body that children under thirteen are not allowed on his platforms. The evidence tells a very different story. Meta's own internal estimates showed over four million American children under thirteen were on Instagram as of twenty fifteen, roughly thirty percent of every ten and twelve, t- ten through twelve year old in this country. Other documents stated the goal, if we want to win big with teens, we have to bring them in as tweens. Internal meta-documents showed employees describing Instagram as, like a drug, and the company as, basically, pushers. But his own employees compared themselves to big tobacco. Internal Google documents compared their own products to casino slot machines. When employees and whistleblowers raised safety concerns, the answer from the top was clear, growth comes first. Third, This committee has the power to act and how you act matters enormously. Our founders gave us the jury trial for exactly this moment. The courtroom is one of the most powerful tools we have to force accountability when there is wrongdoing. Brave families pursuing these cases forced these companies to hand over the evidence. Any legislation must set a floor, not a ceiling. State laws, tort claims, and consumer protections that go further must be preserved. Do not let preemption language become the mechanism by which these companies escape accountability in a courtroom. Section two thirty was written before any of these platforms existed and was never designed for the world we live in now. This committee should seriously consider a total repeal of section two thirty or at a minimum carve out children and teens carve out algorithmic designs. The First Amendment stands on its own. Free speech does not require addictive design. Finally, the burden cannot fall on parents alone. Most parents are doing their absolute best. But they are moms and dads up against trillion dollar companies who have entire teams dedicated to profit growth and engagement on their platforms. That's not a fair fight. I represent parents and families every day. I'm happy to serve as a resource for this committee in any way I possibly can. It's a privilege to testify before you. I'm so grateful for the work that you are doing on behalf of America's children. I welcome your questions.

Thank you. Miss Bogart?

Chair Blackburn, Ranking Member Klobuchar, and subcommittee members. Thank you for inviting me to share our story. My name is Joanne Bogart. I'm a mother of three, a child online safety adv advocate, a founding member of Parents for Safe Online Spaces, and I live in Indi- Indiana with my husband Steve. We have been blessed with almost forty years of marriage and three beautiful children. Before retiring, Steve served our community as a firefighter and I worked at our public school system. Seven years ago, I made a promise to fight for change. I made that promise to my fifteen year old son Mason while he was on life support, after he attempted a dangerous viral challenge that the YouTube algorithm fed to him unsolicited. It is why I have been advocating for the Kids on Line Safety Act for over four years. This is my fourteenth trip to Capitol Hill with other survivor parents telling the story of the worst day of our lives over and over in order to protect other kids. I'm here today to ask Congress to finish the job and pass COSA. Mason was our youngest of three. He was our creative kid, always taking things apart to create something new. He loved fishing, hiking, camping, playing his drums, and entertaining his friends and family with his witty humor. He was smart, funny, compassionate, and generous. He had great friends and went to a good school. At fifteen, he had just started his first job at a landscape business, and was excited to start driver's ed. He wanted to join the army after graduation. May first, twenty nineteen started as a normal day for our family with our typical routines of work, school and dinner. That night Mason gave his dad his typical hug, walked upstairs to take his shower and called to me. "I love you, mama." I replied, " I love you too, buddy." Those were our last words. A few minutes later, we would find Mason's lifeless body, not breathing, no heartbeat. My husband started CPR and got a pulse back. Mason spent a week on life support but never woke up. Our answer what to what had happened was on his phone, a self-recorded video where he had tried a viral social media trend called the choking game that the YouTube algorithm again had fed to him unsolicited. This is a trend where kids make themselves pass out, wake up, and post their seemingly funny videos, seeking those likes and clicks that in today's world are so important to make them feel accepted by their peers. For Mason and too many others, it went horribly wrong and we lost our sweet boy. Since Mason died each week, I searched for these choke and challenge videos on social media. I find dozens within minutes and I report them, yet they're rarely removed. Tech companies' failure to act on the spread of dangerous viral challenges is just one of the ways that platform executives have repeatedly proven that they will not self-regulate, in a manner that will consistently protect children. They give parents and young users and Congress a false sense of safety with promises of protections and safety measures. Research has shown that just eight out of Meta's forty-seven promised parental tools and safety features actually work as advertised. I was at the Senate hearing in January twenty twenty four when TikTok's CEO shows each how lied about TikTok having zero challenges on their platform. I still find them today. At the same hearing, Meta's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, lied to senators, including some of you before me today, claiming to have no knowledge of a correlation between social media and mental health harms. I was at the social media trial against Meta and Google in Los Angeles, where Mark Zuckerberg lied again. about his knowledge of his product being harmful and took no responsibility for decisions he made that put youth on Instagram at risk. Thankfully, a jury found Meta and Google liable and negligent on all charges. Comments are often made that it is the parents' responsibility to protect protect their children online. I am here today to say that even the best parenting skills can't fight these companies and their algorithms. I was the engaged parent who did everything that the experts advised, yet this harmful content still found its way into his phone. My experience and the experience of Bridget and the other survivor parents sitting behind me today make it clear that parents cannot fight this alone. So when people ask, " Where are the parents of these children?" I can tell you the answer. We survivor parents are here on Capitol Hill, sitting through countless hearings and meeting with members of Congress. We are in the classrooms, we are in the town halls, starting foundations, knocking on Meta's door in Sili- Silicon Valley, rallying outside the Apple office, meeting with President Trump, and tomorrow we have a meeting with Speaker Johnson. That is where you will find us, fighting for your children, your grandchildren. Because ours are gone, and we don't want any other family to feel this pain. We have started a huge mem- movement, and we aren't going. anywhere until it's finished. I'm asking every lawmaker to join us in this fight. Do what you do best. Pass legislation to protect America's young people. I pray that this is the very last hearing for COSA and that it moves forward quickly in the Senate and soon becomes law to honor the children who have died at the hands of these platforms and begin protecting every child online. Parents were glad to hear Senate Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz announced at our Mother's Day rally yesterday that he plans to mark up COSA. We asked him to schedule that mark-up without delay. Thank you, Senator Blackburn and Senator Blumenthal, for being champions of this bill in the Senate and to Ranking Member Klobuchar and the subcommittee for standing with the survivor parents and allowing me to share our story with you today.

Thank you, Doctor Leary.

Thank you, Senator Blackburn, Ranking Member Klobuchar, and thank you to all the parents in the room today. It's an honor as a professor who looks at these things from an academic standpoint to be with such brave and tremendous people. I just regret that we are all here. The title of today's hearing has embedded in it certain implications. First, that private law and public law complement each other to protect. Second, that that is indeed the goal. to protect and to prevent harm, not simply to provide a remedy for victims after the harm has occurred. And finally, it also implies a question, do these verdicts demand Congress to act? And the answer is a resounding yes. I first wanna speak generally and then specifically. Generally, there is a historic and fundamental obligation of Congress to protect. Alexander Hamilton asked in seventeen eighty-seven, why has government been instituted at all? And his answer was, because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint. The Supreme Court has noted the most basic function of any government is to provide for the security of the individual. And while undoubtedly you must balance these obligations with other constraints and obligation there is no question that federal legislation plays a essential and unique role in protecting citizens from harm. In short, we don't leave it simply to victims defend for themselves, particularly as Ms. Lanier pointed out, when they are fighting an extraordinarily powerful industrial force. There's a historical pattern here. When new industries emerge, there often is a time where government doesn't intervene, waiting to see what the harms are to balance the of the new industry against the potential harms and to learn more. However, but as the industry grows and its potential to inflict harm on the public becomes more apparent the public law, public statutes often respond with a legal framework that does two things, incentivizes protection and balances the advantage of that industry with the threat of harm to the public. These take many forms, including but not limited to public welfare offenses, criminal offenses, regulation, civil remedies. In this specific space, however, I would suggest to the committee and to Congress that there's uh a particular need for Congress to act. First, because it is beyond dispute in the words of the Supreme Court that the government has a compelling interest to protecting quote " the physical and psychological well-being of children" and less often quoted but equally as important, the Supreme Court has noted that parents and others who have the primary responsibility for children's well-being are entitled, entitled to the support of laws designed to age the discharge of that responsibility. But at this point, Congress is part of the problem. Congress has not self-corrected the ecosystem that exists which provides no deterrence to tech platforms to engage in dangerous actions and every incentive to do so. This committee is well aware, and we've referenced the history of section two thirty, but in nineteen ninety six Congress took this public law action seriously, solved the threat coming, and provided a narrow but important good Samaritan protection for companies to engage in that kind of incentive deterrent structure. But we all know what has happened. A concentrated effort by these tech companies through courtrooms across America to change that, not to its narrow protection, but to what I refer to as a de facto absolute im- absolute immunity. And today there is no question the connection between these harms. In twenty twenty four, sixty two point nine million images and videos and other files were reported to the CyberTip line. Five hundred and forty six thousand reports concerning on-line enticement a one hundred and ninety-two percent increase. Other aspects of the government have acted. the FBI, the Surgeon General, attorneys generals from across the the country. Today it is my understanding that the Alliance to Counter Online Crime has released a report that ties section two thirty directly to a number of particular harms including CSAM, human trafficking, dr drug related death, teen self harms with exponential growth. Knowing what we know, having this information before us, These trials have taken place. And it seems that these juries did not need more than a few weeks to do what Congress has not done in two decades and over forty-one hearings. They waded through the mountain of evidence. They listened to the experts. They read through the internal documents. They allowed tech a full-throttled defense, and then swiftly and resolutely held these companies accountable. Congress should do the same. by correcting section two thirty and enacting other public laws to address the more specific deaths to children that have emerged. Thank you and I welcome your questions.

Miss Norring, you're recognized.

Chair Blackburn, Ranking Member Klobuchar, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this important hearing. It is an honor and privilege to be before you today. My name is Bridget Norring. I am a wife, mother, grandmother, advocate, founder of the Devin J. Norring Foundation and co-founder of Parents Rise. I'm proud of the work that we do, though I wish we didn't have to do it. Six years ago, my son died from fentanyl poisoning after Snapchat connected him to a drug dealer. Devin was only nineteen. He loved football, skateboarding, BMX riding, writing and creating his own music, and he was his sibling's greatest protector. Prior to the start of the pandemic, he began suffering from migraines and dental pain. When critical medical appointments were cancelled the first week of the lockdown, he turned to what he and so many other American children believed was a quick and safe solution. He turned to Snapchat, and Snapchat connected him with a local drug dealer selling counterfeit pills. One pill ended his life while Snapchat let the dealer continue selling to children on its platform long after Devin died, more like two years after Devin had died. In the spring of twenty twenty one, myself and other families who had lost their children to Snapchat met with Snapchat executives including Jennifer Stout Senior VP, Global Policy and Platform Operations. Jennifer Stout told us that as parents we should have been monitoring our children better and that because of section two thirty we could not sue Snapchat. And at first we believed them. Then we watched as more kids died as Snapchat still would not take down predators and dealers and as they did not even warn families of the harms happening on their platform even as we begged them to do so. Section two thirty is why these companies think that they have the right to trade in our children's lives to trespass in our homes and to put digital nicotine in their products for years we were ignored and countless more children died. Then things began to change, a Facebook whistleblower came forward, attorneys collected just enough evidence to demand discovery And these lawsuits are how we finally started to get the truth, the truth in their own words, the truth that we as parents already knew. I submitted examples of those on sealed records with my written testimony. Remember all the years these companies swore that they had done nothing wrong, that they were not designing addictive products, and were doing their best to protect our children? It turns out none of that was true. One YouTube document says quote " vision, we aspire to create an app that is addictive." A Metta employee wrote quote, Instagram is a drug, we're basically pushers. End quote. And another quote, child safety is an explicit non-goal this half. End quote. Internal documents reveal that Metta was aware that it was recommending known children to known groomers and at nearly four times the rate, it recommends children to non-groomer adults. How is that not unreasonably dangerous? Was that by design and how is that not criminal? And yes, we are making progress, but it shouldn't take a years long, David and Goliath battle every time a corporate predator hurts a child. That is not justice. And tech companies shouldn't be allowed to continue to profit off of our misery and loss, especially now as we enter an even more dangerous era with AI. In fact, I just learned that while Senator Hawley has been trying to make clear that it is illegal for AI companies to allow for the sexual exploitation of children, Through the GART Act, the AI industry is trying to get harmful state laws passed, like Colorado's HB twelve sixty three, which says that AI companies can allow for sexual abuse of a child as long as they can show that it was not technically feasible to avoid it. Of course, it is the AI companies that get to determine what is and is not feasible. We are talking about the sexual abuse of children versus a product you get from app stores in the entertainment category. That any state could excuse the sexual exploitation of children just because AI is involved is crazy to me. It's like letting a pedophile off the hook because he says he did his best to avoid hurting a child. These companies can design systems that don't hurt, abuse, and manipulate children. They are just choosing not to in the name of maximizing their profits. This is what American families are up against. These companies hid behind section two thirty immunity And now that we are making progress, they are cleverly pushing bills that require them to do virtually nothing, while allowing the abuse and manipulation of our children to continue in the name of innovation. This isn't innovation, it's abuse. My family and thousands like mine have been sounding the alarm far too long. Some of you have stood strongly with us, and each day more lawmakers are finding the courage to look beyond political parties to truly fight for American families. safety by design and corporate accountability. And now I am here today to tell Congress that it is time to choose. Congress must ensure that the Senate version of COSA will not risk preemption of state and victims' rights and then it must pass it. Congress must pass strong common sense AI chatbot requirements like the GARD Act. Congress must also pass the Cooper Davis and Devin Norring acts so that social media companies are required to report illicit drug activities occurring on their platforms to law enforcement. And Congress must absolutely reform section two thirty. And now that the courthouse doors are slowly opening, Congress must ensure that they stay that way for our families. Tech companies don't fear regulatory fines. Those are just the cost of doing business. But they do fear accountability in court. And they do fear discovery. And they sure do fear the truth being exposed publicly. I made a promise to Devin that his life would not be in vain. I have since extended that promise to the countless victims and families as I carry their loved ones with me on this painful journey, no mother should ever have to endure. This is not about politics. This is about whether our elected officials are willing to protect our children in a digital world that has evolved faster than our laws. And I'm asking Congress to stand with families and against the powerful companies that choose to harm American children by design and then lied to Congress and the world about what they'd done. You cannot you can no longer claim both. Thank you and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Miss Noring. Thank you each for your testimony. Um, Miss Lanier, I wanna start with you with the questions and we'll each do a five minute round of uh questions. So you sat in the second chair At the LA trial, correct?

Yes.

So you had a front row seat.

I sure did.

All right. Um. I I wanna go into some of Mark Zuckerberg's testimony, because I think one thing is very clear as you look at this. He just flat out lied. And I think he did it over and over again. So let's walk through a few of the examples because I think these examples show a pattern of willful disregard for uh the American public and for our children. And first, when he was before this committee in twenty twenty four, he said that, and I'm quoting him now, The existing body of scientific work has not shown a cause or a link between using social media and young people having worse mental health outcomes. And the truth on this is that Meta had a document called, and I quote again, "known negative effects of Facebook and or social media in general on teens." Matta's document even noted some of those negative effects, including increased sleep disruption, anxiety, body image pressure, and depression. So, despite what he said under oath, he knew this. And he was aware of what their virtual products were doing to children. But they did it anyway. So he just lied to us when he came before the committee for a sworn testimony. Is that correct?

And uh thank you so much for the question, Chairwoman Blackburn. Um in in our trial we did find that statements that Zuckerberg had made to Congress directly contradicted internal documents that had been top secret until the courtroom blasted them wide open. And one of the documents that you listed is is unfortunately one of hundreds that showed that Meta internally knew that their platforms were causing tremendous mental health harm including suicide to young children and young minds in America. This is one example and unfortunately we confronted him time and time again and he was very well prepped and tried very hard to dance around it and dance and and uh use his words to to avoid accountability, but the jury saw it our way, which was that he can't shy away from his own internal company documents that showed even in another document one of the worst aspects of teens' relationship on the platform was time spent on the platform. It causes tremendous damage to teens.

See, I don't think he was that well-prepped, because I think he thought he was gonna go in there and he was going to win. And people called out this litany of lies that Mark Zuckerberg has been telling the American people. Okay, I wanna go to another one. Uh, this was in twenty-four in some congressional testimony, and I'm quoting again his statement. Zuckerberg said, and I quote, "We don't allow people under age thirteen on our service." End quote. Now, when you compare that to the internal Meta document that revealed So they knew this. This is their research, just so everybody is here, and I doubt we have somebody from Meta in the room today who wants to defend Meta on the lies. Compare that with their document that shows they had four million children under the age of thirteen on Instagram alone in twenty fifteen. And that is thirty percent of all ten to twelve year olds in this country in twenty fifteen. And we know it is even more than that now, and I um think it's also worth noting that Mehta wasn't even collecting birth dates until December twenty nineteen. So I think it's clear that Mister Zuckerberg's testimony was a blatant lie. Is that correct?

Our our jury certainly saw it that way and so did we. Uh, the Instagram didn't even start collecting ages for anybody creating an an an account until December of twenty nineteen. And for current users who already had a an account, Instagram didn't even collect age data until twenty twenty one. So Instagram's own internal folks said, our lack of proactive action on detecting under thirteen accounts undermines our credibility and another person wrote the fact that we don't that we say we don't allow under thirteens on our platforms yet have no way of enforcing it, is just indefensible and the jury agreed.

Thank you, Senator Klub.

Thank you very much, Cher. Um, I'll start with you, Miss Noring. Um, thank you for being here today. Um, when you lost your son, you said all of the hopes and dreams we as parents had for Devin were erased in the blink of an eye and no mom should have to bury their kid. Can you tell us more about the hopes and dreams you had for his future and what it feels like to be here once again today?

So when Devin Before Devin died, he had dreams, goals, he had set, to go to California that summer, to look into future schools for his music production. He wanted to know everything about it. And I was nervous about him going all the way across country, as any mother would, but those were his goals, those were his dreams. He also worked full time for factory motor parts. He loved going in and doing his job. Um, as a mother, I mean We have so many dreams.

Mm-hmm.

I wanted to see my son get married. Um, my daughter's getting married soon. He'll never see that. I have two grand babies now. He'll never know them. They only know him through pictures. Um, so I'll never get to see him have grandchildren or what he could have potentially grew into.

Thank you. What policy changes would you like us to make?

I would like to see the immunity taken away from big tech. So section two thirty definitely needs to be reformed. There needs to be accountability. Definitely giving parents access to the courtrooms because that is the only way that they will stop doing what they're doing.

Thank you. Um, Selenier, thank you for explaining the harms and um answering the questions that the chair posed. What were biggest challenges you faced in that landmark case in holding Meta and YouTube accountable for the how they designed their platforms.

Thank you so much, ranking member Klobuchar, for the question. It was really an interesting case because as you've heard and you uh heard about some evidence these companies including Meta targeted children to get them on the app to keep them on the app as young as possible and as long as possible and then interestingly The biggest challenge we faced in the courtroom was the flip side of that. The company wanted to target the children in the courtroom and the children's families and say, it's not our fault, blame the parents, even though our mom in our case did everything she could to try and protect her child.

Mm-hmm. Very good, thank you. And Professor, uh, in your testimony you discussed how deterrence is one of the best methods of prevention.

Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. I think that we understand the litigation is a deterrent to be sure, um but unfortunately in many situations it is after the harm, but it is a deterrent. But it has to happen in combination with public law, with uh not only access to the courtroom, which we've been fighting for for so long and great attorneys have been able to But also as these new technologies emerge, public laws that are designed and targeted at them, things like the Kids on Line Safety Act, things like the GART Act, that are addressing simple uh specific actions. For far too long um well let's put it in context. These numbers for the uh verdicts were tremendous, but as the Senator pointed out, more has been spent in lobbying to prevent these laws taking effect than some of them at least one of the verdicts. So I think that both have to work together, just like every other industry in America who faces guidelines,

Mm-hmm.

um uh deterrents if they act poorly and um and reasons to act appropriately.

Yes.

You know, just very quickly, I'll ask you back to you, Miss Monnier as well. You know, this take it down act is actually part of it's taken effect already, but The part about having them take that down in forty-eight hours is going to be taking effect this coming week. Are you gonna be watching for it? What do you see as uh what do you think's gonna happen? And um what do you think we should do if they don't do it? Or maybe more likely what should you do? So go ahead. You can start.