To assist with signatures for this remonstrance, copy the full text of this document into a word processor. Do not change any text. Each signature must include signed name, printed name, city or town of residence, and date. Contact mass@dac.us.com for information on where to mail your completed signature packet.

This remonstrance will be filed with the Clerks of the House and Senate after the conference committee on H.5366 is established. The members of that committee will be notified directly. Organizations wishing to endorse should email the address above.
Please share this remonstrance or its contents with your own state representative and state senator by email, mail, or in person.

REMONSTRANCE TO THE MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL COURT
Regarding H.5366 (formerly H.5349) and the Governor’s Complementary Proposal (Chapter 93M in the FY26 Supplemental Budget)

To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in General Court assembled:

We, the undersigned residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, do hereby formally remonstrate against H.5366 and the Governor’s complementary social media proposal. These proposals were added without public hearing or notice, and they violate the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

First Amendment Violations

Both proposals impose content‑based restrictions on protected speech. H.5366 bans minors under 14 from social media entirely and requires parental consent for 14‑ and 15‑year‑olds. The Governor’s proposal mandates a 2‑hour daily cap on social media use, blocks access from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and during school hours, and requires age assurance systems that destroy anonymous speech. Federal courts have permanently blocked nearly identical laws in Arkansas, Ohio, and Louisiana. The Supreme Court in Moody v. NetChoice (2024) held that a state may not interfere with private actors’ speech. The phrase “hours when school is typically in session” is unconstitutionally vague.

Fourth Amendment and Privacy Violations

Both proposals compel the collection of identification data for age verification. Over 85% of the modern interactive internet could qualify under the state's definition of "Social Media." Most websites and platforms do not need resident data at all. The Governor’s proposal retains data for 10 days and H.5366 makes no mentions of robust limitations, during which it is vulnerable to subpoenas, breaches, and misuse. This is an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Massachusetts Data Privacy Act (S.2608) and federal laws like the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act are directly contravened.

Ninth Amendment Violations

The Ninth Amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." H.5366 and the Governor's proposal violate several unenumerated rights. These include the right of parents to direct the upbringing and communication of their children, the right of minors to receive information and develop intellectually and socially, the right of all persons to communicate with family members without government-imposed time restrictions, and the right to access educational content online. By capping speech at 2 hours per day and banning access between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and during school hours, the state intrudes into the private sphere of family life and personal development in ways not delegated to government and not prohibited by the Constitution. These retained rights predate and exist alongside the enumerated amendments, and they are violated by the state's attempt to regulate the most intimate and essential forms of modern communication.

Fourteenth Amendment Violations

The proposals create arbitrary age classifications without tailoring, violating equal protection. They provide no judicial process for erroneous age determinations, violating due process.

ADA and Section 504 Violations

Neither proposal contains exceptions for people with disabilities who rely on websites with social features or personal electronic devices for medical monitoring and communication, executive function, or medical support. Time‑based restrictions and caps disproportionately harm disabled youth.

Property Rights Violations in Schools

H.5366 requires schools to adopt policies that may include secure storage of personal electronic devices or technology that renders them inoperable. It also includes a pilot program for technology that remotely disables student phones. These provisions violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable seizures. A personal cell phone is private property. Confiscation or remote disablement without individualized suspicion of crime is a warrantless seizure.

Deletion Clause Violations

H.5366 mandates termination and permanent deletion of accounts for users under 14, for users aged 14 and 15 without parental consent, and potentially for all users who cannot or will not verify they are not a minor. This occurs without judicial process, notice, or meaningful hearing. The content deleted could include photos, communications, intellectual property, protected speech or private property. These provisions violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments due process guarantees, the First Amendment protection of speech, and the Ninth Amendment right to retain one's works. The clause also conflicts with the Stored Communications Act, a federal law governing deletion of electronic data, and is preempted.

Federal Statutory Conflicts

These proposals conflict with the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (Wiretap Act and Stored Communications Act), COPPA, FERPA, Section 230, the Video Privacy Protection Act, and the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act. They are preempted by federal law.

Practical Harms

Low‑income residents who cannot afford satisfactory identification will be disenfranchised. Undocumented persons, who may lack any government-issued ID or fear exposure, could be entirely excluded from online speech and community. Facial recognition, if used, is extremely biased and does not properly identify people of color or facial differences due to disability. Domestic violence survivors, journalists, whistleblowers, and others who depend on anonymity will be endangered. LGBTQIA+ youth in unsupportive homes may be cut off from vital online community and crisis resources, and may be unable to obtain parental consent. Homeless teens who rely on interactive websites and social media for resources may be disconnected. Homeschool and virtual school students may lose educational access or educational progress on platforms. Small website owners with blogs, forums, small communities, and small businesses may face ruinous compliance costs. Families relying on free VoIP for communication over social media or similar multi-purpose platforms will be cut off or dangerously limited to call times and call lengths. The parental consent process creates new dangers: there is no secure way to prove one is a parent without submitting sensitive documents, opening the door to fraud, identity theft, and stalking. Abusive parents could request account takedowns to further isolate their children, and there is no mechanism to verify that the requesting parent has custody or the child's best interests at heart.

Procedural Indignity

These provisions were added without public hearing or notice. The amendment H.5349 was added to S.2581 with less than 48 hours notice and passed the House without a public hearing. The Governor's proposal was attached to a budget and declared an “emergency” alongside things like snow-removal. This is an undemocratic abuse of process.

Demand

• We demand that the General Court reject H.5366 entirely and withdraw Chapter 93M from the FY26 supplemental budget.
• If any social media regulation is to be considered in the future, it must be a standalone bill with extensive carve outs to protect all of the aforenoted, including our constitutional rights, with full public hearings, expert unbiased testimony, and meaningful constituent input.
• We further demand passage of robust data privacy legislation (S.2608/H.4746) before any age‑assurance mandate is considered.

Respectfully submitted,
The Undersigned