Following the 2020 accidental overdose of her daughter, Colorado’s Patti Lujan is still pursuing a lawsuit against Snapchat, the social media platform she claims connected her daughter with a drug dealer, police said.

Lujan, like many parents, is looking for more social media protections for juveniles through increased regulation.

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

The mother 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 a Colorado Community Media story.

All around the country, legislators are making efforts to put regulations and protections on social media platforms for minors. Concerned parents and legislators claim the platforms pose mental health and safety risks for developing youth.

Just one Colorado bill relevant to youth on social media became law this year. SB26-011, “Search Warrants Provided to Covered Platforms,” requires that operators of covered platforms provide a system, such as a staffed hotline, for law enforcement to contact them with search warrants for user data at all times.

A covered platform is defined as “a website, online service, online application, or mobile application that serves the public; and that primarily provides a forum for user-generated content, including messages, videos, images, games, and audio files,” according to Congress.

In Colorado, two proposed laws that would have created more stringent regulations for social media platforms operating in Colorado failed to become law.

Senate Bill 25-086 dubbed “Protections for Users of Social Media,” would have required social media corporations to provide “certain data concerning how minor users used the social media platform.”

The proposed law also would require social media companies 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,” according to the Colorado General Assembly.

“This law imposes sweeping requirements that social media platforms, rather than law enforcement, enforce state law,” Gov. Jared Polis said in his veto letter for the bill.

House Bill 26-1255 “Social Media Duty to Report and Search Warrants,” would have required social media platforms to put a system in place for law enforcement to contact them for search warrants.

This bill included stricter requirements than SB26-011, as it dictated that social media platforms must 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 bill. He found fault with the bill giving authority to social media platforms to decide what user speech qualifies as threatening.

Polis said in his veto letter that “determining what speech represents a true threat is a fact-intensive inquiry and one meant for our judicial process — not a private entity.”

The Denver Gazette asked gubernatorial candidates how they would have dealt with the proposed legislation. Several candidates placed social media youth issues high on their priority list.

Victor Marx (R), first-time candidate and leader of an anti-sex trafficking organization All Things Possible Ministries, made his stance clear in an emailed statement to The Denver Gazette.

“As governor, I will not repeat Jared Polis’ mistake. 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,” Marx said. “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’s reasoning that SB25-086 kept 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.”

Ultimately, he deemed Polis’s vetoes “the wrong call.”

Democratic candidate Attorney General Phil Weiser has also been clear about his stance on the issue. In a post on X, he said that signing SB25-086 would be a big step toward saving kids from social media harm. Additionally, Weiser told The Denver Gazette that he would have signed HB26-1255 into law.

Weiser is suing Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, for “irresponsible” management and, if elected governor, will 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 said on his campaign page.

Democrat U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet’s team also issued an emailed response to The Denver Gazette’s inquiry about SB25-086 and HB26-1255, saying “he would not have vetoed those bills.”

The candidate believes “we’re facing a mental health crisis and social media is making it worse,” according to Bennet’s 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. 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,” the spokesperson said.

Bennet has stated these plans to take cellphones out of classrooms, implement social media warnings, and “ensure artificial intelligence is safe for kids,” on his campaign page.

Colorado Rep. Scott Bottoms, R-Colorado Springs, has based his entire campaign — it’s the first and only issue he lists — on protecting children and defending parents’ rights, according to his campaign page. On the matter of SB25-086, though, he voted in opposition. While Bottoms did not explicitly state his reasoning for opposition, many critics argued that the bill impinged on the First Amendment.

Colorado Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, R-Weld County, voted in favor of SB25-086. Kirkmeyer did not respond to The Denver Gazette’s request for comment.

So, why is it so difficult for states to pass regulations on social media platforms? First, it is difficult to prove clear, causal effects of harm from the platforms, despite evidence pointing toward it.

Secondly, it is difficult for social media platforms to comply to a patchwork of differing regulations from different states.

“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 in his HB26-1255 veto letter.

Critics also argue the regulatory bills violate the First Amendment. SB25-086 would have required social media companies to evaluate policy violation reports within 72 hours and promptly remove any users they deemed 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 HB26-1255 veto letter.

There are multiple sides to the issue, though.

“A user who engages in illegal activity on a platform engages in conduct unprotected by the First Amendment,” Phil Weiser wrote in support of the bill, according to previous reporting.

Similarly, State Sen. Lisa Frizell, R-Castle Rock, said: “Unfortunately, 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,” according to Denver7 News. “These are not First Amendment rights. Crime is not a First Amendment right.”

Tech corporations themselves could provide the answers parents are looking for. Apple on June 8 previewed new parental controls that are to 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. The controls are customizable, so parents can tune the device to be age-appropriate.

Colorado parents of children they say were harmed by social media continue to advocate for change, with some even traveling to DC in April.

“The evidence is in. The verdict is now,” one Colorado mother said at The Capitol, 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.”