Chairwoman Warren opened the hearing on SB372.

Natalie Scott, Revisors Office, gave an overview of the bill and stood for questions and further discussion. (Attachment 1)

John Read, Senior Policy Consultant, Digital Childhood Alliance, provided testimony in support of the bill. He discussed the legal analysis he provided within his testimony. (Attachment 2)

Brittany Jones, President, Kansas Family Voice, provided support of the bill. She states they believe children should be protected both socially, physically and psychologically. This bill is not about content, it's about the contract the child is entering into with the app store or with the app. (Attachment 3)

Heidi Olson, Founder and President, Paradigm Shift Training and Consulting, provided testimony on the bill. She stated she has experience situations where the parents believe they are protecting their kids by only allowing apps that are age appropriate. There is no true informed consent when children download apps. This bill is critically important because it creates protection kids truly need. (Attachment 4)

Chris McKenna Founder, Protect Young Eyes, supports this bill. She states this bill utilizes existing technologies for one of the most pressing challenges of protecting our children and families. App Stores already collect enough user data. Nothing new will need to be gathered. The act mandates that age information shared with developers remains anonymous, safeguarding privacy. (Attachment 5)

Sarah Thacker, Legislative Analyst, National Center on Sexual Exploitation, on behalf of Elenor Kennelly Gaetan, provides support of the bill. She stated the App Store Accountability Act addresses the gap by placing the responsibility where it belongs, which is on the app stores. This approach mirrors other industries where retailers are responsible for verifying a consumers age before selling dangerous products. The digital marketplace should be no different. (Attachment 6)

Jared Hayden with Michael Tascano, Policy Analyst, Family First Technology Initiative, The Institute for Family Studies, provides support of the bill. He stated in raising kids, parents need help, especially online by applying common sense standards to the digital world and putting power back in the parents hands.  (Attachment 7)

Proponents, written only testimony was submitted by:

• Michelle Schroeder, Chief of Staff, Office of the Attorney General (Attachment 8)
• Bob Stuart, Executive Officer, Kansas Bureau of Investigation (Attachment 9)
• Macy Petty, Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (Attachment 10)
• Lucrecia Nold, Policy Specialist, Kansas Catholic Conference (Attachment 11)

Proponents stood for questions and discussion.

Megan Stokes, State Policy Director, Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), provided testimony in opposition of this bill. She stated that CCIA firmly believes that children deserve strong privacy and safety protections online. They urge the committee to focus on empowering families through digital education, rather than adopting a measure that undermines their free expression and user privacy. (Attachment 12)

Tahra Hoops, Director of Economic Analysis, Chamber of Progress spoke in opposition of the bill. She stated they felt a more effective approach would focus on empowering developers to build age appropriate experiences, improving digital literacy and providing families with tools that support safety. (Attachment 13)

Juan Londono, Chief Regulatory Analyst, on behalf of Taxpayers Protection Alliance, spoke in opposition of the bill. He stated that the bill's parental consent mandates pose significant privacy and practical concerns. Proving a parental or guardianship relationship between and adult and a child inevitably leads to adults submitting certificates or court orders.(Attachment 14)

Ninia Linero, Senior Manager, State Government Affairs, ACT: The App Association provided testimony in opposition to the bill. She stated they are ready to work for solutions that are effective, privacy protective, and workable for innovators serving Kansas families. (Attachment 15)

Zach Lilly, Director of Government Affairs, NetChoice, provided testimony in opposition of the bill. He states bills like this bill are already inviting challenges, have been found to violate fundamental first amendment rights, and are a significant privacy threat to both children and adults. (Attachment 16)

Eric Stafford, Vice President of Government Affairs, Kansas Chamber, spoke in opposition of the bill. He stated the Kansas Chamber membership is concerned with the immediate timeframe of adopting new standards that will take time to develop the interface necessary to comply with requirements in the bill. (Attachment 17)

Turner Loesel, Policy Analyst for the Center for Technology and Innovation, The James Madison Institute, provided testimony in opposition of the bill. He stated protecting children online is incredibly important, mandatory age verification is just not the way to do it. (Attachment 18)

Opponents, written only testimony was submitted by the following:

• Josh Withrow, Fellow, Tech & Innovation Policy, R Street Institute - (Attachment 19)
• Heather Andrews, Co-Founder, Right to Parent - (Attachment 20)
• John Tamny, President, Parkview Institute - (Attachment 21)

Opponents stood for questions and further discussion.

Chairwomen Warren closed the hearing on SB372.

Adjourned 11:35 a.m.