R Street Institute Opposes Minnesota Social Media Regulation Bill, Citing Technical and Constitutional Concerns

A policy expert has testified against proposed Minnesota legislation that would impose strict regulations on social media platforms, warning the measure would face significant implementation challenges and likely violate constitutional protections.

Josh Withrow, a fellow with the R Street Institute’s Technology and Innovation policy team, presented testimony to the Minnesota House Judiciary Committee opposing HF 4400, known as “The Prohibiting Social Media Manipulation Act.” The nonprofit, nonpartisan organization advocates for free markets and limited government, including in the technology sector.

While acknowledging concerns about social media’s effects that motivated the legislation, Withrow argued the bill takes a fundamentally flawed approach.

“HF 4400 would be nearly impossible for companies to implement or comply with and is also likely to be found in violation of the First Amendment,” Withrow told committee members.

The bill would mandate how social media platforms structure their services and user interactions by default. One provision would effectively disable recommendation algorithms by banning platforms from offering any content users haven’t expressly sought.

“Such a requirement not only burdens users’ access to content but burdens the platform’s own speech,” Withrow explained, noting courts have repeatedly protected how companies filter and present content as protected expression. He cited a recent U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that upheld an injunction against a similar Florida law.

The legislation also suffers from vague guidance, requiring platforms to promote “high quality” content and deprioritize “low quality” material without clearly defining these terms. This ambiguity, combined with the bill’s private right of civil action, would “doubtless invite a torrent of expensive litigation,” according to Withrow.

Perhaps the most technically challenging aspect of the bill involves requiring device operating systems to include options for disabling features like infinite scroll, autoplay, and push notifications across all social media platforms. Withrow described this mandate as “technically infeasible” and impossible to implement on a state-by-state basis.

“Even if it were not technologically unworkable, requiring that social media platforms be rendered inconvenient to navigate by default may well run afoul of the First Amendment,” he added.

The R Street Institute recommends addressing social media concerns, particularly for younger users, through better education rather than restrictive regulation. Withrow cited research supporting digital literacy curriculum improvements as a more effective approach.

The testimony was presented on March 14 to the House Judiciary, Finance, and Civil Law Committee chaired by Representative Jamie Becker-Finn.

As states increasingly explore social media regulation, this debate highlights the tension between protecting consumers and respecting constitutional freedoms while addressing the technical realities of modern digital platforms.