South Carolina Social Media Regulation Act (Act 96 of 2026, H. 3431) ↗
Signed and effective 2026-02-05 as Act 96. NetChoice challenged it (NetChoice v. Wilson, D.S.C., complaint filed 2026-02-09; preliminary-injunction motion 2026-03-09) as a content-based speech restriction and unconstitutionally vague, but no injunction had issued as of 2026-07-04; the Act remains in force.
The 'Social Media Regulation Act' label understates its scope: substantively it is an AADC-style reasonable-care design code (NetChoice and commentators describe it as an age-appropriate design code). 'Minor' is defined as under 18. In force since 2026-02-05 (Act 96, Ratification R100). A previously recorded 2027-03-01 parental-supervision-tools phase-in was removed on 2026-07-04 re-verification: the bill's SECTION 4 makes the whole act effective on the Governor's approval with no deferred compliance date, and two law-firm alerts (Parker Poe, Troutman) describe immediate effect with no phase-in. No source supporting the 2027 date was found. private_right_of_action set to `unknown`: sources confirm AG enforcement with treble damages and personal officer/employee liability, but conflict on whether a private right of action exists, so it is not asserted rather than guessed. NetChoice v. Wilson docket (3:26-cv-00543, D.S.C.) is bot-gated (CourtListener returns 403, a live-server signal); litigation dates drawn from Privacy Daily / Bloomberg Law coverage. Section pins and the exact covered-service thresholds not verified against the enrolled text.
Scope
Reaches online services 'reasonably likely to be accessed by minors,' where a 'minor' is a consumer under 18.
Despite its 'Social Media Regulation Act' title, the Act operates as an Age-Appropriate Design Code imposing a reasonable-care duty on covered services rather than a profiles/feeds-defined social-media statute. The exact covered-service thresholds have not been verified against the enrolled text.
Penalties
- Model
- Other
- Detail
- Enforced by the South Carolina Attorney General, who may seek treble financial damages for violations; officers and employees may be held personally liable for willful and wanton violations.
- Enforcer
- South Carolina Attorney General
- Private right of action
- Unverified; treated as unknown, not assumed absent
Key dates
- Signed
- 2026-02-05
- Effective
- 2026-02-05
Obligations (3)
Exercise reasonable care in using a minor's personal data and designing product experiences to avoid reasonably foreseeable harms to minors, including compulsive usage, severe psychological harm, identity theft, discrimination, and material financial or physical injury.
Statute’s own ages: Applies to 'minors' under 18.
Provide users with tools to disable engagement-maximizing features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, gamification, engagement metrics, and push notifications, and default personalized-recommendation systems to off for users known to be minors.
Statute’s own ages: Personalized-recommendation default-off applies to known minors under 18; the feature-disable tools are user-controlled.
Provide default-on parental controls for users known to be minors, including account-supervision tools (view privacy settings and connections, set daily time limits, schedule breaks, and receive reports).
Statute’s own ages: Applies to accounts of known minors under 18.
Litigation history
- 2026-02-09NetChoice filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (NetChoice v. Wilson, 3:26-cv-00543) challenging the Act on First Amendment and vagueness grounds→ No injunction at filing; the Act remained in force source ↗
- 2026-03-09NetChoice moved for a preliminary injunction→ No change pending a ruling. The Act remained in force; the court had not ruled on the motion as of 2026-07-04 source ↗
Cross-state comparisons
- similarca-aadc (California): Both are Age-Appropriate Design Codes imposing a best-interests/reasonable-care duty and design constraints on services likely accessed by under-18 users, rather than hard account age gates.
- similarmd-kids-code (Maryland): Both pair a reasonable-care/best-interests duty with data-minimization and default protections for minors; South Carolina's is in force (challenge pending, no injunction) as Maryland's is.
- similarny-safe-for-kids (New York): Both restrict engagement-maximizing mechanics for minors: New York gates algorithmic feeds and nighttime notifications, while South Carolina requires user tools to disable such features and defaults personalized recommendations off for known minors.