A subcommittee of the South Carolina House Judiciary Committee on Monday gave a favorable report to an amended bill that would require online services to verify the age of account holders, require parental consent for minors, bar targeted advertising to minors and impose data-handling and safety requirements on platforms that meet defined thresholds.

Representative Moore, the amendment's sponsor, told the committee the measure expands the original parental-consent bill to include an "age appropriate design code" and provisions that treat certain online services more like consumer products. He said the amendment bans targeted advertising to minors, requires default safety settings for underage users, restricts unnecessary data collection, prohibits dark-pattern design tactics and requires annual reporting on practices related to minors.

The amendment would give the South Carolina Attorney General enforcement authority, permit civil suits in state circuit court, and provides a statutory damages remedy of either $2,500 per violation or actual damages; the amendment also references treble damages and personal liability for willful misconduct in enforcement provisions. The bill as amended would require the Department of Education to develop Internet-safety and mental-health programs for students beginning March 1, 2026.

Committee debate focused on how age and parental identity would be verified, what “commercially reasonable efforts” means, and whether the state or parents should carry the primary responsibility for supervising minors online. Representative Bamberg raised repeated concerns about requiring parents to submit government-issued identifiers (for example, Social Security numbers or driver's-license information) to private companies, the risk of data retention or misuse, and practical issues for children in nontraditional custody arrangements or in state care. He also warned that state-court venue provisions and the statute's interaction with numerous federal laws cited in the amendment could prompt immediate litigation and federal-preemption challenges.

Representative Moore and other supporters said the amendment responds to documented industry practices—such as use of dark patterns and algorithmic engagement mechanisms—that they say exploit minors' cognitive development. Moore pointed to similar approaches adopted or considered by other states and the European “age-appropriate design” frameworks as justification for the measure.

Representative Bernstein said she supported the bill with the amendment but agreed some of the federal-law references and legal issues raised by members should be worked out before floor consideration.

The subcommittee voted to table the subcommittee report, adopt the new amendment, and then ordered a roll call on H 3431 as amended. By vote of 20 in favor, 1 opposed and 3 not voting, H 3431 received a favorable report as amended.

Supporters said the bill creates tools for parents and a framework to curb manipulative design targeting minors; opponents warned the proposal could push parents to share sensitive personal data with private platforms, raise enforcement burdens for the Attorney General's office and invite litigation. The measure now moves to the full committee/floor under the amended text.