A House committee convened an extensive public hearing on House Bill 18 34, a proposal aimed at reducing algorithmic targeting and "addictive feeds" for minors and increasing parental controls and privacy protections. Supporters described a youth mental-health crisis they link to social media; opponents raised constitutional and practical concerns about age verification and compelled editorial decisions.

Sponsor and overview: The bill’s sponsor (identified in the hearing as Representative Kallen) framed the proposal as a public-health and child-safety measure that seeks to limit design features and algorithms that keep minors continuously engaged. Committee staff and the attorney general’s office described how the bill builds on federal discussion and other states’ proposals while attempting to avoid language that has been struck down in courts.

Supporters: Adam Eitman from the attorney general’s office said the office supports the bill and noted "we face an unprecedented youth mental health crisis" and that the bill seeks to balance children's, parents' and companies' interests. Dr. Stefan Blandford of Children’s Alliance testified in support: "The research is clear that addictive social media platforms are targeting kids in pursuit of profits and not the welfare of young people." Parent and victim advocates shared personal testimony: Taj Jensen, who described losing a son to a fentanyl overdose, blamed algorithms for amplifying harmful content and urged lawmakers to "Turn off the algorithm that push harmful content to our minors." Educators and youth groups, including the superintendent of Yakima School District and representatives of Schools Out Washington and MomsRising, said algorithm-driven content interferes with learning, sleep and mental health.

Industry and civil-liberties concerns: TechNet, NetChoice and Chamber of Progress testified in opposition or with concerns. Rose Feliciano of TechNet said the group "oppose[s] this legislation" and argued sections would likely be unconstitutional, citing Moody v. NetChoice and recent federal court rulings. Industry witnesses argued age-verification mandates would collect or force storage of sensitive data and create privacy and security risks, and said feed-based editorial choices raise First Amendment issues. Zach Lilly of NetChoice warned that age-verification mandates have been blocked in other states and that forcing identity checks risks creating targets for identity theft.

Technical testimony and alternatives: Jay Jesma of the Transparency Coalition, who has industry experience building recommendation systems, said age-estimation and other technical controls are already feasible and cited recent industry experiments by major platforms. Ian Corby, representing age-verification suppliers, stated the industry can perform age checks "proving your age without disclosing your identity" and described approaches used in jurisdictions with strict data rules.

Constitutional and operational debate: Multiple witnesses referenced recent court activity. Rose Feliciano argued the bill could amount to compelled speech because it would regulate the expressive quality of feeds; supporters countered that the bill targets business practices that engineer addictive engagement and protects children’s privacy and wellbeing. Several witnesses urged the legislature to seek narrow, workable language; industry witnesses urged caution and recommended collaboration to craft alternatives.

Ending: The committee suspended the public hearing on HB 18 34 to open a separate hearing and later reconvened to other business; no committee vote on the bill was taken at this meeting. Members and stakeholders signaled interest in continued negotiations over definitions, First Amendment contours, age-estimation techniques and operational safeguards.