Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The Don’t Sell Kids’ Data Act of 2025 prohibits entities defined as data brokers from collecting, using, maintaining, selling, licensing, renting, trading, transferring, disclosing, or otherwise making available personal data of individuals the broker knows are children (under 13) or teens (13–17).
Data brokers may only retain minor-related data to the extent necessary to comply with the statute and must delete such data and provide a mechanism for teens, parents or agents to request deletion; requests must be processed within 10 days.
The bill treats violations as unfair or deceptive acts under the FTC Act, gives the FTC full enforcement authority, preserves state attorney general enforcement (with notice and coordination provisions), and creates a private right of action with statutory minimum damages ($1,000 per violation), treble damages for willful violations, and fee shifting to prevailing plaintiffs; predispute arbitration waivers cannot strip these rights.
Content favors consumer protections for minors (politically sympathetic), but the law would impose new compliance burdens and a robust private right of action that invites industry lobbying and litigation concerns. Those enforcement and liability features are common stumbling blocks in negotiating the compromises typically needed for enactment, especially in the Senate.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified substantive regulatory statute that establishes a clear prohibition on data brokers handling minors' personal data and provides multiple enforcement mechanisms. It includes specific definitions, a deletion process with a short statutory timeline, and private and public enforcement remedies.
Scope and stringency: liberals emphasize child protection and robust enforcement; conservatives emphasize economic/regulatory burden and litigation risk.
Scope and stringency: liberals emphasize child protection and robust enforcement; conservatives emphasize economic/regulatory burden and litigation risk.
A mainstream progressive would likely view this bill positively as a strong federal step to protect children and teenagers from commercial exploitation and pervasive data collection.
They would welcome the broad ban on data-broker activity with respect to minors, the deletion requirement, the FTC enforcement backstop, and the private right of action that avoids forced arbitration.
They may still have questions about loopholes (e.g., service provider exceptions) and whether enforcement resources and implementation guidance will be adequate.
A pragmatic moderate would appreciate the goal of protecting minors’ privacy but approach the bill with caution about implementation, costs, and unintended consequences.
They would value the FTC enforcement mechanism and the deletion process, but be concerned about ambiguous definitions (e.g., who qualifies as a data broker, what it means to 'know' someone is a teen) and the potential for a large volume of private lawsuits with statutory damages.
Centrists would likely seek clearer safe harbors, phased implementation, and limits or procedural prerequisites before private suits to reduce frivolous litigation while preserving meaningful remedies.
A mainstream conservative would likely be skeptical of this bill because it substantially restricts commercial activity by an entire sector (data brokers) and creates robust private litigation exposure and expanded federal enforcement.
They would be concerned about regulatory overreach, vague standards (e.g., what it means to 'know' someone is a minor), the economic impact on businesses that depend on data markets, and the expansion of FTC authority and state parens patriae suits.
They might also view the statutory damages floor and treble damages as excessive and a magnet for litigation abuses.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content favors consumer protections for minors (politically sympathetic), but the law would impose new compliance burdens and a robust private right of action that invites industry lobbying and litigation concerns. Those enforcement and liability features are common stumbling blocks in negotiating the compromises typically needed for enactment, especially in the Senate.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Scope and stringency: liberals emphasize child protection and robust enforcement; conservatives emphasize economic/regulatory burden and li…
Content favors consumer protections for minors (politically sympathetic), but the law would impose new compliance burdens and a robust priv…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified substantive regulatory statute that establishes a clear prohibition on data brokers handling minors' personal data and provides multiple enforceme…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.