Safer GAMING Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 6265
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Commerce
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-12-11: Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Voice Vote.
- Last Updated
- 2026-02-23T17:22:58Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The Safer Guarding of Adolescents from Malicious Interactions on Network Games Act (Safer GAMING Act) aims to protect minors (individuals under 18) from harmful online interactions in video games by requiring providers to implement parental safeguards that control communications between minors and other users.
Key Provisions
- Definitions:
- An "interactive online video game" is a game connected to the internet that allows users to communicate with each other.
- An "online video game provider" is any person or company offering such games directly to consumers via websites, apps, or other online methods.
- A "covered user" is a known minor user; an "adult user" is a known non-minor user.
- "Knows" means having actual knowledge or willfully ignoring facts.
- Required Safeguards:
- Providers must offer tools for parents of minors to limit or block communications between their child and any other users, including adults.
- These tools must be easy to access and use, enabled by default on minor accounts, and only disableable by the parent.
- The highest level of privacy and safety settings must include these safeguards by default for minors.
- Providers may allow parents to customize limits for multiple users but cannot override the core protections.
- Effective Date: Requirements take effect one year after the bill's enactment.
- Enforcement:
- Violations are treated as unfair or deceptive practices under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, allowing the FTC to investigate, sue, and impose penalties like fines.
- States can file civil lawsuits on behalf of residents to stop violations, seek compensation, or obtain other remedies, but must notify the FTC first and cannot proceed if a federal case is already underway against the same party for the same issue.
- Preemption: The law overrides any conflicting state or local rules on these safeguards.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- This introduces the first federal mandate specifically requiring online video game providers to default-enable and parent-control communication safeguards for minors, building on but expanding the FTC's existing authority over unfair practices in consumer protection.
- It adds coordinated state enforcement with federal oversight, preventing fragmented state laws while preserving state investigative powers.
- No prior federal law directly addresses in-game communications for minors in this way, shifting from voluntary industry practices to mandatory defaults.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The FTC gains expanded enforcement tools and resources to monitor video game providers, potentially increasing its workload in child online safety. State attorneys general can pursue cases but must coordinate with federal efforts, reducing duplication.
- On Citizens: Parents of minors gain stronger, default tools to protect children from unwanted interactions (e.g., bullying, grooming) in online games, enhancing family privacy. Minors benefit from automatic protections unless overridden by parents, but adult users may face restricted access to minor interactions.
- On Businesses: Online video game providers (e.g., companies like Epic Games or Roblox) must redesign platforms within one year, incurring development and compliance costs; non-compliance risks fines or lawsuits.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though foreign-based providers serving U.S. consumers (e.g., via apps) must comply, potentially influencing global standards for child safety in gaming.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Online Video Game Providers: Primary targets for compliance and enforcement.
- Parents and Minors: Direct beneficiaries through enhanced controls and protections.
- Federal Trade Commission (FTC): Leads enforcement and coordination.
- State Attorneys General and Agencies: Can initiate lawsuits to protect residents.
- Adult Game Users: Indirectly affected by communication limits with minors.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Violations trigger civil penalties under the FTC Act (e.g., fines up to $50,120 per violation as adjusted for inflation), emphasizing consumer protection without creating new criminal offenses. The preemption clause ensures uniform national standards, avoiding a patchwork of state rules.
- Constitutional: Supports parental rights to oversee children's online activities (aligned with precedents like those in child privacy laws) but could raise free speech concerns if communication limits are seen as overly restrictive; however, it focuses narrowly on safety defaults rather than content bans.
- Political: Represents a bipartisan push for child online safety amid growing concerns over digital harms, potentially setting a precedent for regulating other interactive platforms (e.g., social media) while balancing industry innovation with protection—though critics might view it as increased government oversight of tech.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (2)
Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4], Rep. Soto, Darren [D-FL-9]
Recent Actions
- 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
- 2025-11-21: Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade.
- 2025-11-21: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 2025-11-21: Introduced in House
- 2025-11-21: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Safer Guarding of Adolescents from Malicious Interactions on Network Games Act — issued 2025-11-21 — PDF (8 pages)