Minnesota Children’s Privacy Laws (2026)

HF 4138 (2026 Minn. Laws ch. 111)

Enacted, not yet effective · Social media · effective 2027-07-01 · binds platforms, operators

Ages: Under 16 (treated as 'child'/15-or-younger when not confidently estimated at 16+)

Requires: Covered social media platforms (10,000+ Minnesota account holders or $1B+ worldwide revenue) must collect birth month and year at sign-up, estimate account holders' ages, and treat anyone not confidently estimated to be 16 or older as a child (15 or younger). A child's account needs verifiable parental consent, defaults to the most private settings, may not show addictive features (infinite scrolling, profile-based feeds, push notifications, autoplay video, reaction and share counts, usage-based badges) or targeted paid ads, and its data may not be sold, transferred or disclosed except as other law requires; parents must be offered time-monitoring and time-limit options and can have the account terminated. Knowing or reckless violations are deceptive trade practices enforceable by the Attorney General and let a child or parent recover actual damages or $10,000 in statutory damages, whichever is greater; a platform that used reasonable efforts to comply is not liable.

Litigation: No suit filed against HF 4138; not enjoined. NetChoice opposed the bill, including in a 2026-05-18 veto-request letter arguing it violates the First Amendment, but has not sued. Two NetChoice v. Ellison cases are pending in the District of Minnesota and neither challenges HF 4138. No. 0:25-cv-02741 (filed 2025-06-30) challenges Minn. Stat. 325M.33(1)-(5), part of the Prohibiting Social Media Manipulation Act (complaint, paragraph 1); HF 4138 later added a clause (6) to that section, effective 2027-07-01, which the complaint predates and does not name. Under the court's 2026-07-31 order on the parties' stipulation (docket entry 49), NetChoice's preliminary-injunction motion was due 2026-09-15, the Attorney General's opposition 2026-10-15 and NetChoice's reply 2026-11-05. NetChoice filed the motion on 2026-09-15; its memorandum of law (Doc. 54) argues against the disclosure duties in 325M.33(1)-(5) and does not mention clause (6) or HF 4138's new section 325M.40. No. 0:26-cv-02405 (filed 2026-04-29) challenges the separate warning-label section, Minn. Stat. 325M.335, and is tracked with that entry.

Entry last reviewed 2026-10-01

HF 4757 (2024, Ch. 121)

In force · Privacy law (minors) · effective 2025-07-31 · binds operators

Ages: Known children under 13 (COPPA); teens 13-16

Requires: A controller may not process the personal data of a consumer for targeted advertising, or sell it, without consent where the controller knows the consumer is between 13 and 16 (Minn. Stat. 325M.16, subd. 2(f)). Processing the personal/sensitive data of a 'known child' (under 13) requires consent from a parent or lawful guardian in accordance with COPPA (subd. 2(d)); COPPA-compliant verifiable parental consent satisfies the obligation.

Entry last reviewed 2026-10-01

HF 2 (2025 First Special Session, Minn. Laws 1Sp2025 ch. 3, art. 19, sec. 13; codified as Minn. Stat. 325M.335)

In force · Social media · effective 2026-07-01 · binds platforms, operators

Ages: All users (no age restriction in the statute itself; it is a general social-media warning-label mandate, tracked here on the same in-dataset precedent as CA AB 56)

Requires: Social media platforms must display a conspicuous mental health warning label every time a user accesses the platform, staying visible until the user exits or affirmatively acknowledges the risk and proceeds. The warning must describe potential negative mental health impacts of social media use and provide the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline number, cannot be buried in terms and conditions, cannot be permanently dismissed, and cannot be obscured by other content. The health commissioner (with the commerce commissioner's help) was required to issue content guidelines by March 1, 2026, and is exempt from the normal rulemaking process (Chapter 14) in doing so; the Department of Health rescinded its first guidelines and replaced them with guidelines dated 2026-06-01 that prescribe a single label beginning 'THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REQUIRES THIS MESSAGE' and point users to 988.

Litigation: NetChoice v. Ellison, No. 0:26-cv-02405 (D. Minn., filed 2026-04-29), challenges this law (not HF 4138) as a First Amendment violation. No preliminary injunction was ever sought or entered; apart from attorney-admission motions, the only motions on the docket are motions to dismiss. Defendants' first MTD (filed 2026-06-03) was withdrawn 2026-07-10 after NetChoice filed an amended complaint (2026-06-24, which also references rescinded and reissued Dept. of Health guidelines); a renewed MTD targeting the amended complaint was filed 2026-07-08 and is fully briefed (NetChoice's opposition 2026-07-29, the State's reply 2026-08-12), with a hearing set for 2026-10-19 before Judge Nancy E. Brasel. The law is in force and not enjoined, but the Attorney General's office said in a 2026-07-01 statement (published verbatim by KTTC News) that it 'agreed not to immediately enforce the law in order to give the Court breathing room to rule on the motion to dismiss' and will enforce it according to its terms if the suit is dismissed; no stipulation or order recording that pause appears on the docket.

Entry last reviewed 2026-10-01