(The Center Square) – Louisiana is looking to join several states in cracking down on access to mobile applications for underage individuals.

Under House Bill 570, teens would need parental permission to download apps like TikTok, Snapchat or Instagram.

The legislation, which passed without objection, aims to give parents greater control over the digital lives of their children by requiring app stores to verify the age of users and confirm parental consent for anyone under 18.

The bill passed the House Commerce Committee without objection. 

“Our phones are now the white van,” said Michelle Johnson, a supporter of the bill who warned lawmakers about the link between social media and child exploitation. “We wouldn’t let a strange man lure our kids off the street, but we allow it online every day.”

The bill’s supporters, including Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, argue that placing the responsibility on app stores is both practical and protective of user privacy.

Nicole Lopez, Meta’s Director of Global Litigation Strategy for Youth, told lawmakers the company backs HB570 as a “privacy-protective solution” that streamlines parental control without overburdening app developers.

“Parents already verify age and grant permissions when they buy a phone for their teen,” Lopez said. “This bill would make that process apply to all app downloads, not just purchases, using the infrastructure Apple and Google already have.”

Lopez noted that Meta has already migrated over 25 million American teens into stricter “Teen Accounts” with limited messaging and default privacy settings. The company says 80% of U.S. parents support legislation requiring parental consent for app downloads by teens under 16, based on polling data.

The bill would also help ensure compliance with the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, which restricts the collection of data from users under 13.

Not everyone is on board. On Monday, critics argued the bill threatens user privacy, shifts liability unfairly to app stores, and may not stand up in court.

“HB570 would compromise the privacy of all users by requiring more data collection just to verify someone’s age,” said Aden Hizkias with the Chamber of Progress, a tech industry coalition. “This shifts responsibility away from social media companies and undermines First Amendment rights.”

Justin Hill, a policy analyst with NetChoice and a former Missouri lawmaker, warned that similar laws in Utah and Ohio have already been blocked by courts.

“This exact bill has been filed and hasn’t passed elsewhere. Courts have said forcing people to upload ID just to access digital content violates constitutional protections.”

In an interview, Carver said that the bill has been tailored so that it does not target specific content, such as social media platforms, thereby avoiding a constitutional challenge. 

“This would apply to all 1.5 million apps on the stores, so we’re not limiting anyone’s access to speech,” Carver said. 

Hill pointed out that the practical implications are enormous.

“On Day 1, you’d need to submit ID to the app store just to download or update apps. If you want your son to have access, you’d need to prove you’re their parent — how do you do that without a birth certificate?” Hill asked. 

John Tamny of the Parkview Institute called the proposal “a trivialization of parenting,” saying Apple and Google already provide tools for parents to manage screen time and restrict access to apps.

“We’re pretending parents are powerless when, in reality, they’re already well-armed.”

HB570 would require major app stores like Apple and Google to collect minimal information about a user’s age and parental status before allowing teens to download apps. Once verified, parents would receive requests to approve or deny any attempted downloads by their child.

However, the bill does not address what happens if a child uses a parent’s already-approved device.

“That’s something that will have to be left to the parents,” said Rep. Kim Carver during the hearing. “We don’t want to get into the business of telling parents how to parent.”

Supporters emphasized that the legislation is narrowly tailored to avoid the constitutional pitfalls that have plagued other state efforts. Unlike earlier laws that singled out specific apps or websites, HB570 applies to all app stores equally.

(The Center Square) – Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp said in a social media post Monday he will not run for U.S. Senate in 2026. 

U.S. Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., is up for reelection and Republicans are hoping to regain the seat. 

The governor said the decision was made after discussions with “friends, supporters and leaders” from across the country. 

“After those discussions, I have decided that being on the ballot next year is not the right decision for me and my family,” Kemp said. “I spoke with President Trump and Senate leadership earlier today and expressed my commitment to work alongside them to ensure we have a strong Republican nominee who can win next November, and ultimately be a conservative voice in the US Senate who will put hardworking Georgians first.”

Kemp’s announcement leaves the Republican nominee for the Senate seat wide open. Some candidates discussed are U.S. Reps.  Marjorie Taylor Greene and Mike Collins. 

(The Center Square) – Robert F. Kennedy Jr.  is being sued by California, New York, Washington, Arizona, Colorado and other states over what they call the dismantling of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department.

Plaintiffs in the suit filed Monday against the health secretary also include Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. 

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, the suit challenges Kenney’s March 27 directive cutting about 10,000 jobs. At the time, the Health and Human Services Department said the cuts, which were in response to President Donald Trump’s executive order on the same day calling for reductions at federal agencies, would save $1.8 billion a year.

But Monday’s lawsuit says the Trump administration has stripped the department of the resources it needs to do its job.

“On April 1, 2025, when the termination notices went out and employees were immediately expelled from their work email, laptops, and offices, work across the vast and complicated Department came to a sudden halt,” according to the lawsuit. “Throughout HHS, critical offices were left unable to perform statutory functions. There was no one to answer the phone, factories went into shutdown mode, experiments were abandoned, trainings were canceled, site visits were postponed, application portals were closed, laboratories stopped testing for infectious diseases such as hepatitis, and partnerships were immediately suspended.”

“The Food and Drug Administration missed a vaccine application deadline and canceled a critical test for the bird flu virus, suspending that testing program for the year,” the complaint reads.

The coalition of states is urging the federal court to halt the mass firings, reverse what it calls the illegal reorganization, and restore critical health services, according to a news release from the Arizona Attorney General’s Office.

The lawsuit also protests the closing of half of the department’s 10 regional offices, including one in San Francisco, according to the California Attorney’s General Office. The office goes on to explain the lawsuit contends the cuts violated the Administrative Procedure Act, is beyond the scope of presidential power, and violates the Appropriations Clause and Separation of Powers doctrine of the U.S. Constitution. 

The suit contends the health cuts were especially harsh on several federal agencies: the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Administration for Children and Family, and the Administration for Community Living. Officials from those agencies are listed as defendants in the lawsuit along with Kennedy.

The complaint goes on to say Kennedy didn’t restructure the department carefully or legally and admitted there were going to be mistakes. The secretary did say 20% of the reductions could be errors, as reported by CBS News and other media.

“The terminations and reorganizations happened quickly, but the consequences are severe, complicated and potentially irreversible,” Monday’s lawsuit reads. “Plaintiff States are already suffering consequences of these terminations and reorganizations.”

But Kennedy argued the cuts, which involve restructuring the department from 28 divisions to 15, will make government more efficient.

“We aren’t just reducing bureaucratic sprawl. We are realigning the organization with its core mission and our new priorities in reversing the chronic disease epidemic,” he said. “This department will do more – a lot more – at a lower cost to the taxpayer.”