New Hampshire House Bill 1658 is not the best option for keeping kids safe online

A version of the following public comment was submitted to the Members of the House Commerce, Consumer Affairs Committee and the New Hampshire House of Representatives on January 29, 2026.

The Technology Policy Project at Reason Foundation provides pro bono consulting to public officials and stakeholders to help design and implement artificial intelligence (AI), digital free speech, data security and privacy, child online safety, and tech industry competition policies. Our team brings practical, market-oriented strategies to help foster innovation, competition, and consumer choice through technology policies that work.

New Hampshire is right to want to protect kids from content inappropriate for their age. Unfortunately, New Hampshire House Bill 1658 (HB 1658), like many laws introduced in state legislatures across the country, forces all users to hand over their personal information, such as a government-issued ID, or to submit to a biometric facial scan for age verification in order to access online applications and engage in free expression. And if parents wish to declare that their children are using a service with their permission, this bill would still require parents to submit their private, sensitive information first.

This bill's proposed heavy-handed and constitutionally troubling approach to online youth safety shuts out users seeking an avenue to exercise their right to anonymous speech and puts sensitive personal information at risk of being stolen or hacked. Utah and Texas have passed legislation that is substantially similar to HB 1658, resulting in expensive legal challenges, while doing little to ensure the safety of children online today.

An alternative that empowers parents, protects rights, and holds companies to account

To that end, New Hampshire would be better served by implementing policies like California's Assembly Bill 1043 (2025), which relies on parent declarations and age assurance. Instead of requiring all users to submit a government ID or any other invasive form of age verification, this approach allows parents to declare their children's age category. Once a parent has declared the age of their child, this alternative approach would then require an app store to send a digital signal to developers. These age signals put app stores and developers on notice that they are dealing with children, and with that notice comes all the legal liability of dealing with children in the offline world.

Rather than the intrusive, privacy-violating regulations inherent in HB 1658, New Hampshire should look to solutions that empower parents, including parent-side tools like device settings and app control options to protect kids without undermining personal privacy or security.