The government will introduce the Digital Safety Act later today, with the headline being a ban on social media for those under 16. I’ve posted extensively on why a social media ban is an ineffective and harmful policy that raises privacy concerns for tens of millions of Canadians by mandating age verification. Yet beyond bad policy, the forthcoming bill may also become the source of the next Canada-U.S. digital policy collision. The Canadian pattern of struggling with U.S. trade pressure on digital issues is well known, starting with the Digital Services Tax that the government rescinded last summer to the recent move to reverse the CRTC’s Online Streaming Act ruling. But what has not been discussed is that a ban might be the next source of friction. The U.S. just told UK officials in an official submission that it stands against broad social media bans, strongly opposes regulations that require or create conditions that compel platforms to collect government-issued IDs, and that it is skeptical of using technical age estimation for 13-to 16-year-olds. In other words, it is opposed to much of what the Canadian government reportedly has planned in Bill C-34.

The U.S. submission came in response to the UK’s “Growing up in the online world” consultation, its own examination of social media age limits, design restrictions, and age verification. The response should put the Canadian government on alert, given it suggests that the Digital Safety Act could face intense opposition from the U.S. The U.S. position, quoted directly from the submission, includes:

• Encouraging “healthy options” rather than outright bans – platforms should be incentivized to offer age-appropriate alternatives (e.g., chronological feeds instead of algorithmic ones, chatbot “study modes,” grayscale modes, usage-time limits) that parents can optionally enable.
• Age assurance is especially complex for ages 13-16. Technical methods developed to distinguish minors from adults cannot simply be repurposed for younger thresholds. We assess that parental attestation may be the most practical path forward for this age range.
• We favor narrowly targeted requirements primarily with respect to pornographic and adult commercial content (e.g., online gambling, tobacco sales, alcohol sales), rather than broad social media bans.
• Most content should remain accessible by default, including political speech. We believe an open internet is essential to the preservation of free speech and most content should be accessible by default unless the provider knows or has reason to know the user is a child.
• We have concerns about regulations that impose disproportionate compliance burdens on American companies or that apply to one platform but not similar services.
• We strongly oppose regulations that require or create conditions that compel platforms to collect government-issued IDs (e.g., driver’s licenses, passports), which create serious privacy and security risks, encourage surveillance systems vulnerable to abuse, and chill freedom of speech.
• Phased implementation with adequate time to develop technological standards is essential: Rushing age assurance frameworks risks creating systems that harm privacy and free speech. There needs to be time to develop, assess, and deploy technological approaches that do not result in unintended consequences.

It is difficult to reconcile the U.S. position with Canada’s plans. The Canadian plan will include a social media ban and will likely require the use of age-verification technologies and the submission of government IDs. Moreover, the government is anxious to move quickly, which runs counter to recommendations to take the necessary time to develop technological approaches that avoid unintended consequences. And in case there was any doubt, the U.S. will oppose regulations that place “disproportionate” compliance burdens on U.S. companies.

A kids’ social media ban is a weaker trade target than a digital services tax aimed at foreign firms or a levy that foreign streamers paid into but could not benefit from, since an age requirement applies to platforms of every nationality. But the U.S. is already focusing on compliance burdens that fall hardest on the largest platforms, which are predominantly U.S.-based.

None of this means Canada should avoid good policy to address online harms. There are real harms and regulation, irrespective of the U.S. reaction, is overdue. However, the U.S. position reinforces the view that the troubling consequences of a social media ban may extend beyond policies that create harm and are likely to fail, as they may also lead to yet another trade battle with the U.S.