Following the accidental overdose of her daughter in 2020, Patti Lujan pursued a lawsuit against Snapchat, the social media platform that, she claimed, connected her daughter with a drug dealer.

In a news release announcing the lawsuit, Lujan alleged that Snapchat’s platform “‘purposefully obstructs parental supervision’ and ‘enables (drug) dealers to locate and access nearby minors and young adults.’”

The mother said she believes that Snapchat protects drug dealers by not identifying and removing them from the app, and she called for protective measures to be put in place for minors, according to news stories.

The regulatory push in Colorado is occurring all around the country, where state legislators are advancing regulations they said would protect children from social media platforms, which they accused of posing mental health and safety risks for youth.

Candidates for governor have also turned their attention to the issue, with some putting it high on their policy list.

Over the last several years, Colorado legislators tackled several measures. This year, they advanced one — Senate Bill 26-011, which requires that operators of platforms provide a system, such as a staffed hotline, for law enforcement to contact them with search warrants.

Under the new law, a “covered platform” refers to online sites or apps with at least a million monthly users that allow them to post or view content created by others or by artificial intelligence. The definition applies to chat rooms and message boards.

Two other proposals seeking more stringent regulations for social media platforms operating in Colorado also failed.

Senate Bill 25-086 would have required social media corporations to determine within 48 hours of an alleged policy violation whether the violation is valid, “and, if so, to remove the user from the applicable social media platform within 24 hours after the determination is made.”

Gov. Jared Polis vetoed the bill, saying it imposes “sweeping requirements that social media platforms, rather than law enforcement, enforce state law.”

The second bill, House Bill 26-1255, would have required social media platforms to acknowledge search warrants within eight hours and comply with them within 24 hours. Additionally, the platform would have been required to provide status updates on its compliance with the warrants.

Polis also vetoed this legislation, saying it delegates authority to social media platforms to decide what user speech qualifies as threatening.

“Determining what speech represents a true threat is a fact-intensive inquiry and one meant for our judicial process — not a private entity,” the governor said.

Candidates outline social media policies

Several candidates placed social media youth issues high on their priority list.

Victor Marx, a Republican candidate for governor, said he would “not repeat Jared Polis’ mistake” in vetoing one of the bills that reached his desk.

“I will work with Republicans, any Democrats willing to put kids before Big Tech and front-line law enforcement to fix the flaws in these bills and send a stronger, constitutional version back to my desk,” said Marx, a ministry leader. “When that bill truly protects kids and backs the badge, I will sign it. If the legislature sends me a weak, symbolic measure that does not actually protect children, I will veto it and demand better.”

In response to Polis’ rationale for vetoing SB25-086 — the governor said it would keep law enforcement from doing its job — Marx said: “I believe we can defend free speech and privacy while still giving parents, sheriffs and prosecutors real tools to shut down predators and dealers operating through social media.”

Attorney General Phil Weiser, who is vying for the Democratic Party’s gubernatorial nomination, said he would have signed SB 25-086, saying it would have been a big step toward saving kids from social media harm. Weiser told The Denver Gazette that he would have also signed HB 26-1255 into law.

Weiser said he would support bills to “regulate social media companies for failing to protect kids from illegal activities such as drug dealing, illegal sale of firearms, sex trafficking, and sexual exploitation.” He had joined other attorneys general in suing Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, alleging the company its platforms that deliberately make children and teens addicted to them.

In an email, U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, who faces Weiser in their party’s primary, also said he would not have vetoed SB 25-086 and HB 26-1255.

“We’re facing a mental health crisis and social media is making it worse,” Bennet said through a spokesperson.

“As Governor, he’ll take on social media companies and fight for kids’ mental health. Michael is the only candidate in this race calling for a bell-to-bell ban on cellphones in schools,” the spokesperson said. “He will also support legislation to strengthen online protections for kids, including making social media accounts private by default, requiring social media companies to remove accounts targeting children, and placing stricter guardrails on AI chatbots.”

On his campaign page, Bennet also vowed to take cellphones out of classrooms, implement social media warnings and “ensure artificial intelligence is safe for kids.”

A focal point for Rep. Scott Bottoms, a Republican from Colorado Springs who is running for governor, is protecting children and defending parents’ rights, according to his campaign page.

Bottoms voted against SB 25-086. Though he did not explicitly state his reasoning for opposition, many critics argued that the bill impinged on the First Amendment.

Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, a Republican from Weld County who is running for governor, voted in favor of SB 25-086. She did not respond to The Denver Gazette’s request for comment.

Policymakers have been grappling with two difficulties with regulating social media platforms. First, it is difficult to prove clear, causal effects of harm from the platforms. Second, many have argued that social media platforms should not have to deal with a patchwork of regulations that’s different from state to state.

“Moving from 72 hours to 24 hours would also move Colorado out of alignment with other states, including California, who have established a 72 hour response requirement for law enforcement warrants,” Polis said when he vetoed HB 26-1255.

Critics have also argued the regulatory bills violate the First Amendment. SB 25-086, in particular, would have required social media companies to evaluate policy violation reports within 72 hours and promptly remove any users they deem guilty.

“The First Amendment does not tolerate the chilling or infringement of protected speech and the Fourth Amendment likely requires more than one report of a policy violation to trigger law enforcement searches and seizure. The loss of constitutional freedom, even for a moment, is an irreparable injury to an individual and to our democracy,” Polis said in his veto of HB 26-1255.

Some have countered that a user who engages in illegal activity forfeits First Amendment protections.

“A user who engages in illegal activity on a platform engages in conduct unprotected by the First Amendment,” wrote Weiser, who conducted a constitutional analysis at the request of the bill’s sponsors and concluded the measure is constitutionally sound.

“Unfortunately,” Sen. Lisa Frizell, R-Castle Rock, said, “the governor has chosen to take the narrative that it is a First Amendment right to sell drugs on social media or to sextort children on social media.”

“These are not First Amendment rights. Crime is not a First Amendment right,” she said, according to Denver7 News.

Meanwhile, Apple on June 8 announced new parental controls that will launch in the fall.

Parents will be able to create a “child account,” where they can choose what content their children have access to, who they can communicate with and how long they have access to the device, according to the company. The controls are customizable, so parents can tune the device to be age appropriate, Apple said.

Colorado parents who said their children were harmed by social media traveled to Washington, D.C. in April to press for more changes.

“The evidence is in. The verdict is now,” one Colorado mother said, according to CPR News. “We need action. We are calling on Congress to act. We need safety by design. We need a duty of care. We need transparency. And we need real accountability.”