CLICK HERE Review the AG’s Proposed Rules
CLICK HERE to Review the Private Fiscal Note
Title 15—ELECTED OFFICIALS
Division 60—Attorney General
Chapter 18—Age Verification
PROPOSED RULE
15 CSR 60-18.010 Definitions
PURPOSE: This rule provides definitions for terms used in this chapter.
(1) “Commercial entity” includes a corporation, limited liability company, partnership, limited partnership, sole proprietorship, or other legally recognized business entity.
(2) “Distribute” means to issue, sell, give, provide, deliver, transfer, transmute, circulate, or disseminate by any means.
(3) “Minor” means an individual under eighteen (18) years of age.
(4) “Substantial portion” means thirty-three percent (33%) or more of the total amount of data publicly available on a website.
(5) “News-gathering organization” includes—
(A) An employee of a newspaper, news publication, or news source, printed or on an online or mobile platform, of current news and public interest, who is acting within the course and scope of that employment and can provide documentation of that employment with the newspaper, news publication, or news source; and
(B) An employee of a radio broadcast station, television broadcast station, cable television operator, or wire service who is acting within the course and scope of that employment and can provide documentation of that employment.
(6) “Publish” means to communicate or make information available to another person or entity on a publicly available internet website.
(7) “Pornographic for minors” means any material or performance if the following apply:
(A) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the material or performance, taken as a whole, has a tendency to cater or appeal to a prurient interest of minors;
(B) The material or performance depicts nudity, sexual conduct, the condition of human genitals when in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal, or sadomasochistic abuse in a way which is patently offensive to the average person applying contemporary adult community standards with respect to what is suitable for minors; and
(C) The material or performance, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
(8) “Transactional data” means a sequence of information that documents an exchange, agreement, or transfer between an individual, commercial entity, or third party used for the purpose of satisfying a request or event. The term includes records from mortgage, education, and employment entities.
(9) “Self-contained sexual content segment” refers to any delineated section or category of a website or application, accessible through a link on the website or application, in which a substantial portion of the content contained in that section or category is sexual material harmful to minors.
(10) “Application” means a software application or electronic service that a user may run or direct on a mobile device.
(11) “Mobile device” means a phone or general purpose tablet that—
(A) Provides cellular or wireless connectivity;
(B) Is capable of connecting to the internet;
(C) Runs a mobile operating system; and
(D) Is capable of running applications through the mobile operating system.
(12) “Mobile operating system” means software that—
(A) Manages mobile device hardware resources;
(B) Provides common services for mobile device programs;
(C) Controls memory allocation; and
(D) Provides interfaces for applications to access device functionality.
(13) “Digital identification” means information stored on a digital network that may be accessed by a commercial entity and that serves as proof of the identity of an individual.
AUTHORITY: section 407.020, RSMo Supp. 2024, and section 407.145, RSMo 2016. Original rule filed April 10, 2025.
PUBLIC COST: This rule will not cost state agencies or political subdivisions more than five hundred dollars ($500).
PRIVATE COST: This rule will not cost private entities more than five hundred dollars ($500).
NOTICE TO SUBMIT COMMENTS: Anyone may file a statement in support of or in opposition to this proposed rule with the Attorney General’s Office, ATTN: Proposed Rulemaking, Supreme Court Building, 207 W. High Street, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, or by email to regulations@ago.mo.gov. To be considered, comments must be received within thirty (30) days after publication of this notice in the Missouri Register. No public hearing is scheduled.
Summary of Proposed Rule 15 CSR 60-18.010 – Definitions
This proposed rule defines certain terms as those terms are used in the enforcement of the Merchandising Practices Act and regulations made under the Act. In particular, the proposed rule defines certain terms relating to age verification.
Title 15—ELECTED OFFICIALS
Division 60—Attorney General
Chapter 18—Age Verification
PROPOSED RULE
15 CSR 60-18.020 Operation of an Internet Platform, Application, or Search Engine
PURPOSE: The attorney general administers and enforces the provisions of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), Chapter 407, RSMo. The attorney general may make rules necessary to the administration and enforcement of the provisions of Chapter 407, RSMo, and, in order to provide notice to the public, may specify the meaning of terms whether or not used in the Act. This rule does not contain an exhaustive list of practices that violate the Act. Instead, this rule identifies certain specific practices that violate section 407.020, RSMo.
To provide notice to the public of the basis for the attorney general’s actions, the foundation and rationale set forth in this purpose statement also sets forth more fully the purpose and foundation for 15 CSR 60-17.010 through 15 CSR 60-17.070.
The MMPA prohibits unlawful, fraudulent and unfair practices in connection with any trade or commerce in the State of Missouri. “[T]he literal words [of the MMPA] cover every practice imaginable and every unfairness to whatever degree.” Ports Petroleum Co. v. Nixon, 37 S.W.3d 237, 240 (Mo. banc 2001). The State of Missouri, furthermore, has a “strong interest in protecting children.” State v. Wright, 751 S.W.2d 48, 52 (1988). The MMPA may be used to prosecute violations of other statutes, including criminal statutes protecting children from exposure to pornographic materials. Violations of many other laws, especially violations of laws protecting minors from sexually explicit content by commercial actors, are necessarily unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, and otherwise unlawful practices. The Missouri Supreme Court has concluded that the MMPA covers any violation of “any public policy” so long as the violation of that other law “presents a risk” of “substantial injury to consumers.” Huch v. Charter Commun., Inc., 209 S.W.3d 721, 725 (Mo. banc 2009) (quoting 15 CSR 60–8.020(1)).
The attorney general has determined that a rulemaking is necessary to carry out the purposes of the MMPA. Missouri law prohibits “furnishing pornographic material to minors” and “promoting pornography for minors or obscenity.” sections 573.030–.040, RSMo. The U.S. Supreme Court has long upheld laws just like these. Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 641 (1968). Age verification has long been required in brick-and-mortar stores distributing pornographic material, see id., and Missouri’s law does not differentiate between brick-and-mortar stores and the internet when it comes to prohibiting companies from providing pornographic material to minors. sections 573.030–.040. Yet with the explosion of the internet, companies have found many ways to avoid accountability under Missouri law. It is thus necessary to implement regulations that facilitate enforcement of Missouri’s existing laws.
The internet has enabled companies to skirt compliance with laws protecting minors, which is why access to pornography by minors has exploded in recent years. Between 2006 and 2022, the number of children aged thirteen (13) or younger exposed to online pornography doubled, from just over 25% to 54%. See Chiara Sabina, et al., The Nature and Dynamics of Internet Pornography Exposure for Youth, 11 CyberPsychology & Behavior 691, 692 (2008); Michael B. Robb & Supreet Mann, Common Sense Media, Teens and Pornography at 5 (2022), https://perma.cc/YG3L-W3LK. The average age a child first views online pornography is 12 years old. American College of Pediatricians, Factsheet: The Impact of Pornography on Children (Aug. 2024), https://acpeds.org/assets/positionpapers/factsheet_-the-impact-of-pornography-on-children.pdf. The number of children exposed to online pornography at age 10 or younger increased more than seven-fold during the same time period, from less than 2% in 2008 to 15% by 2022. Id. The vast majority—84.4%—of 14- to 18-year-old males and 57% of 14- to 18-year-old females have been exposed to hardcore pornography online, with some studies reporting even higher figures. Paul J. Wright, Bryant Paul & Debby Herbenick, Preliminary Insights from a U.S. Probability Sample on Adolescents’ Pornography Exposure, Media Psychology, and Sexual Aggression, 26 J. of Health Commc’n 39, 46 (2021). Put simply, when pornography moved online, organizations stopped complying with preexisting laws requiring age verification.
Another factor that makes it easier for companies to skirt compliance with Missouri law is that some of the biggest companies that distribute pornography to minors are located not just outside Missouri, but also outside the United States. For example, one of the largest operators of online pornography, Pornhub, is “the 12th most visited website in the world . . . ahead of Amazon, TikTok, and LinkedIn,” Bradley Saacks, Inside Pornhub’s Finances, Semafor (Jul. 27, 2023), https://perma.cc/EC8Q-3FEU, and it is owned by a Canadian multinational conglomerate with separate spinoff companies in haven countries.
What is worse, the nature of the material has changed significantly. Material readily accessible to children today is not the “‘girlie’ picture magazines” of previous generations. Ginsberg, 390 U.S. at 634. Instead, much of the material online is hardcore pornography of the type that satisfies the Supreme Court’s definition of obscenity—speech that is not constitutionally protected for adults, let alone children. Id. at 635. Because of the ubiquity of smart phones, tablets, and the internet, Missouri’s children today “can easily be exposed to the most extreme, misogynistic sex acts imaginable.” David Horsey, Our Social Experiment: Kids with Access to Hard-Core Porn, L.A. Times (Sept. 3, 2013), https://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-xpm-2013-sep-03-la-na-tt-kids-access-porn-20130822-story.html (last accessed Mar. 25, 2025).
This content has demonstrated negative effects on the brain, similar to the neurological effects seen with gambling addicts, drug addicts, and alcoholics. See Todd Love et al., Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addition: A review and Update, 5(3) Behavioral Sciences 388 (2015); Simone Kühn & Jürgen Gallinat, Brain Structure and Functional connectivity associated with pornography consumption: the brain on porn, JAMA Psychiatry (July 2014), https://perma.cc/YAE3-WWVB. “[P]ornography consumption is associated with decreased brain volume in the right striatum, decreased left striatum activation, and lower functional connectivity to the prefrontal cortex.” Id. And the effects are most pronounced among minors. “Adolescents are more susceptible to sexually explicit material because of the significant physical, emotional, cognitive, social, spiritual, and sexual changes associated with adolescent development.” Romney, Screens, Teens, and Porn Scenes, supra at 52; Jennifer A. Brown & Jonathan Wisco, The Components of the Adolescent Brain and Its Unique Sensitivity to Sexually Explicit Material, 72 J. Adolescence 10, 11–12 (2019).
An age-verification rule is necessary not only because companies are flouting Missouri law, but also to give parents adequate tools to protect their children from the many harmful effects of minors viewing pornography. Parents “who have this primary responsibility for children’s well-being are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid discharge of that responsibility.” Ginsberg, 390 U.S. at 639. Missouri law already requires age verification. This regulation enhances the tools to facilitate compliance with Missouri law.
This proposed rule clarifies that the failure of an individual or commercial entity to use certain commercially reasonable age verification technology to protect minors in Missouri from accessing sexually explicit content online constitutes an “unfair practice” under the MMPA. Age verification, including online age verification, has long been required to purchase age-restricted items or to engage in other age-restricted activities. The MMPA currently contains other age verification measures such as those relating to the sale of tobacco or vape products or the purchase of precious metals. section 407.292; 407.926, RSMo. Furthermore, nothing in this proposed rule limits the ability of adults to view sexually explicit material online. The proposed rule simply requires that purveyors of online pornography take certain minimum, commercially reasonable steps to ensure that they are not recklessly or knowingly inflicting significant (and well documented) harms on Missouri’s children.
(1) It is an unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful practice for any person or commercial entity to operate a website, application, or self-contained sexual content segment, including a social media platform, knowing (or with reckless disregard about the fact) that the website, application, or self-contained sexual content segment contains a substantial portion of material pornographic for minors and is accessible in the state of Missouri, unless such individual or commercial entity uses reasonable age verification methods as described by 15 CSR 60-18.030 to verify that the individual attempting to access the website, application, or self-contained segment of the website or application is eighteen (18) years of age or older. This section shall not apply to search engines.
(2) It is an unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful practice for any person or commercial entity to operate a search engine unless the search engine blurs out or makes unavailable images, GIFs, or videos depicting material pornographic for minors that can be viewed from the search engine landing page in the state of Missouri. This requirement does not apply if the search engine has used reasonable age verification methods as described by 15 CSR 60-18.030 to verify that the individual attempting to access the search engine is eighteen (18) years of age or older.
(3) Any person or commercial entity covered by 15 CSR 60-18.020(1) or (2) that performs the age verification, or any third party that performs the age verification required by 15 CSR 60-18.020(1) or (2), may not retain any identifying information of the individual whose age is being verified unless retention of the identifying information is otherwise required by law or a court order.
(4) Any person or commercial entity covered by this chapter that performs the age verification required by 15 CSR 60-18.020(1) or (2), or any third party that performs the age verification required by 15 CSR 60-18.020(1) or (2), must use commercially reasonable methods to secure all information collected and transmitted under this chapter.
(5) This regulation shall become effective 90 days after the final rule is published.
AUTHORITY: section 407.020, RSMo Supp. 2024, and section 407.145, RSMo 2016. Original rule filed April 10, 2025.
PUBLIC COST: This rule will not cost state agencies or political subdivisions more than five hundred dollars ($500).
PRIVATE COST: The Attorney General’s Office estimates costs may range from $0 to $4,608,000 annually for social media platforms or websites and $0 to $70 million annually for internet search providers.
NOTICE TO SUBMIT COMMENTS: Anyone may file a statement in support of or in opposition to this proposed rule with the Attorney General’s Office, ATTN: Proposed Rulemaking, Supreme Court Building, 207 W. High Street, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, or by email to regulations@ago.mo.gov. To be considered, comments must be received within thirty (30) days after publication of this notice in the Missouri Register. No public hearing is scheduled.
Summary of Proposed Rule 15 CSR 60-18.020 – Operation of an Internet Platform, Application, or Search Engine
This proposed rule clarifies that the failure of an individual or commercial entity to use certain age verification technology to protect minors in Missouri from accessing sexually explicit content online constitutes an “unfair practice” under the MMPA. The proposed rule requires that providers of online pornography take certain steps to ensure that they are not recklessly or knowingly inflicting significant harms on Missouri’s children.
Title 15—ELECTED OFFICIALS
Division 60—Attorney General
Chapter 18—Age Verification
PROPOSED RULE
15 CSR 60-18.030 Reasonable Age Verification Methods
PURPOSE: This rule specifies methods by which commercial entities, as defined under this chapter, may comply with age verification requirements contained in the chapter.
(1) A commercial entity that operates a website or application subject to 15 CSR 60-18.020(1) or (2), and any third party that performs age verification under this chapter, shall require an individual to—
(A) Provide digital identification; or
(B) Comply with a commercial age verification system that verifies age using—
-
-
- Government-issued identification; or
- A commercially reasonable method that relies on public or private transactional data to verify the age of the individual.
-
(2) A commercial entity may adopt a different method of compliance so long as the entity can establish to the agency in charge of promulgating rules under the the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), Chapter 407, RSMo, that the alternative method is equally effective. The standard of proof shall be a preponderance of the evidence.
AUTHORITY: section 407.020, RSMo Supp. 2024, and section 407.145, RSMo 2016. Original rule filed April 10, 2025.
PUBLIC COST: This rule will not cost state agencies or political subdivisions more than five hundred dollars ($500).
PRIVATE COST: The Attorney General’s Office estimates costs may range from $0 to $4,608,000 annually for social media platforms or websites and $0 to $70 million annually for internet search providers.
NOTICE TO SUBMIT COMMENTS: Anyone may file a statement in support of or in opposition to this proposed rule with the Attorney General’s Office, ATTN: Proposed Rulemaking, Supreme Court Building, 207 W. High Street, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, or by email to regulations@ago.mo.gov. To be considered, comments must be received within thirty (30) days after publication of this notice in the Missouri Register. No public hearing is scheduled.
Summary of Proposed Rule 15 CSR 60-18.030 – Reasonable Age Verification Methods
This rule specifies methods by which commercial entities may comply with age verification requirements. Such entities must require individuals to provide digital identification or comply with a commercial age verification system that uses government-issued identification or other commercially reasonable methods.
Title 15—ELECTED OFFICIALS
Division 60—Attorney General
Chapter 18—Age Verification
PROPOSED RULE
15 CSR 60-18.040 Applicability of This Rule
PURPOSE: This rule provides exceptions for certain entities with regard to the age verification requirements contained in this chapter.
(1) The provisions of 15 CSR 60-18.010 through 15 CSR 60-18.070 do not apply to a bona fide news or public interest broadcast, news recording, report, or event and shall not be construed to affect the rights of a news-gathering organization.
(2) An internet service provider, or its affiliates or subsidiaries, a search engine, or a cloud service provider shall not be held to have violated this rulemaking solely for providing access or connection to or from a website or other information or content on the internet or on a facility, system, or network not under that provider’s control, including transmission, downloading, intermediate storage, access software, or other services to the extent the provider or search engine is not responsible for the creation of the content that constitutes material pornographic to minors.
AUTHORITY: section 407.020, RSMo Supp. 2024, and section 407.145, RSMo 2016. Original rule filed April 10, 2025.
PUBLIC COST: This rule will not cost state agencies or political subdivisions more than five hundred dollars ($500).
PRIVATE COST: This rule will not cost private entities more than five hundred dollars ($500).
NOTICE TO SUBMIT COMMENTS: Anyone may file a statement in support of or in opposition to this proposed rule with the Attorney General’s Office, ATTN: Proposed Rulemaking, Supreme Court Building, 207 W. High Street, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, or by email to regulations@ago.mo.gov. To be considered, comments must be received within thirty (30) days after publication of this notice in the Missouri Register. No public hearing is scheduled.
Summary of Proposed Rule 15 CSR 60-18.040 – Applicability
This rule provides exceptions for certain entities with regard to age verification requirements, specifically exempting bona fide news or public interest broadcasts and stating that the rule will not affect the rights of news-gathering organizations.
Title 15—ELECTED OFFICIALS
Division 60—Attorney General
Chapter 18—Age Verification
PROPOSED RULE
15 CSR 60-18.050 Counting Violations
PURPOSE: This rule specifies the procedures for, and limitations on, the counting of instances of a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter.
(1) For purposes of civil penalties under section 407.100, each time an individual accesses a website, application, or search engine not in compliance with 15 CSR 60-18.020 shall constitute a separate violation, but in no event shall an entity accrue more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in violations in a single day.
AUTHORITY: section 407.020, RSMo Supp. 2024, and section 407.145, RSMo 2016. Original rule filed April 10, 2025.
PUBLIC COST: This rule will not cost state agencies or political subdivisions more than five hundred dollars ($500).
PRIVATE COST: This rule will not cost private entities more than five hundred dollars ($500).
NOTICE TO SUBMIT COMMENTS: Anyone may file a statement in support of or in opposition to this proposed rule with the Attorney General’s Office, ATTN: Proposed Rulemaking, Supreme Court Building, 207 W. High Street, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, or by email to regulations@ago.mo.gov. To be considered, comments must be received within thirty (30) days after publication of this notice in the Missouri Register. No public hearing is scheduled.
Summary of Proposed Rule 15 CSR 60-18.050 – Counting Violations
This rule specifies the procedures for, and limitations on, the counting of instances of a violation of any of its provisions. Specifically, each time an individual accesses a website, application, or search engine in violation of 15 CSR 60-18.020 shall be a separate violation, but penalties shall not exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in a single day.
Title 15—ELECTED OFFICIALS
Division 60—Attorney General
Chapter 18—Age Verification
PROPOSED RULE
15 CSR 60-18.060 Requirement to Create Device-Side Verification Option
PURPOSE: This rule provides specific requirements for certain mobile operating systems to include the capacity to provide digital age-verification identification.
(1) It is an unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful practice for any provider or operator of a mobile operating system present on at least ten million devices in the United States to provide or operate the mobile operating system unless the mobile operating system has the capacity to provide digital age-verification identification as contemplated in 15 CSR 60-18.030 that a website or application can use to comply with 15 CSR 60-18.020.
AUTHORITY: section 407.020, RSMo Supp. 2024, and section 407.145, RSMo 2016. Original rule filed April 10, 2025.
PUBLIC COST: This rule will not cost state agencies or political subdivisions more than five hundred dollars ($500).
PRIVATE COST: The Attorney General’s Office estimates costs may range from $0 to $4,608,000 annually for social media platforms or websites and $0 to $70 million annually for internet search providers.
NOTICE TO SUBMIT COMMENTS: Anyone may file a statement in support of or in opposition to this proposed rule with the Attorney General’s Office, ATTN: Proposed Rulemaking, Supreme Court Building, 207 W. High Street, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, or by email to regulations@ago.mo.gov. To be considered, comments must be received within thirty (30) days after publication of this notice in the Missouri Register. No public hearing is scheduled.
Summary of Proposed Rule 15 CSR 60-18.060 – Requirement to Create Device-Side Verification Option
This rule requires large mobile operating systems (present on at least ten million devices in the United States) to provide digital age-verification identification capacity. Failure to do so will be an unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful practice.
Title 15—ELECTED OFFICIALS
Division 60—Attorney General
Chapter 18—Age Verification
PROPOSED RULE
15 CSR 60-18.070 Severability, Construction, and Effective Date
PURPOSE: This rule specifies the applicability, severability, and construction of the rules contained in this chapter.
(1) This chapter applies to the maximum extent permitted by the United States Constitution, the laws of the United States, the Constitution of Missouri, and the laws of Missouri, but no further.
(2) This chapter does not subject any individual or commercial entity to damages or other legal remedies to the extent the individual or commercial entity is protected from those remedies under federal law.
(3) It is not a violation of this chapter if the actions or conduct are taken at the behest of federal agencies, contractors, or employees that are carrying out official duties under federal law if doing so would violate the doctrines of preemption or intergovernmental immunity.
(4) If any application of any provision, word, or clause to any person, commercial entity, or circumstance is found by a court to be invalid, that application alone shall be severed and the remaining possible applications of every provision, word, and clause to all other persons, commercial entities, and circumstances shall remain in force.
AUTHORITY: section 407.020, RSMo Supp. 2024, and section 407.145, RSMo 2016. Original rule filed April 10, 2025.
PUBLIC COST: This rule will not cost state agencies or political subdivisions more than five hundred dollars ($500).
PRIVATE COST: This rule will not cost private entities more than five hundred dollars ($500).
NOTICE TO SUBMIT COMMENTS: Anyone may file a statement in support of or in opposition to this proposed rule with the Attorney General’s Office, ATTN: Proposed Rulemaking, Supreme Court Building, 207 W. High Street, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, or by email to regulations@ago.mo.gov. To be considered, comments must be received within thirty (30) days after publication of this notice in the Missouri Register. No public hearing is scheduled.
Summary of Proposed Rule 15 CSR 60-18.070 – Severability, Construction, and Effective Date
This rule details the applicability, severability, and construction of the rules contained in this chapter, specifying that such rules do not penalize any individual otherwise protected by federal law and further stating that if any provision is found to be invalid by a court, such provision will be severed while the remaining portion continues to be effective.
CLICK HERE Review the AG’s Proposed Rules
CLICK HERE to Review the Private Fiscal Note
Title 15 – ELECTED OFFICIALS
Division 60 – Attorney General
Chapter 19 – Social Media
15 CSR 60-19.010 Definitions
PURPOSE: The attorney general administers and enforces the provisions of the Merchandising Practices Act, Chapter 407, RSMo. The attorney general may make rules necessary to the administration and enforcement of the provisions of Chapter 407, RSMo, and, in order to provide notice to the public, may specify the meaning of terms whether or not used in the Act. This rule specifies the meanings of certain terms used in the enforcement of the Act and provides notice to the public of their application. This rule does not contain an exhaustive list of practices that violate the Act. Instead, this rule identifies certain specific practices that violate section 407.020, RSMo.
- “Social media platform” means an Internet website, medium or application that is open to the public, allows a user to create an account, and enables users to communicate with other users for the primary purpose of posting or receiving user-generated content, including information, news, comments, videos, or images. The term does not include:
- An Internet Service Provider;
- Online encyclopedias;
- Email;
- Electronic dating services;
- An online service, application, or website that consists primarily of news, sports, entertainment, or other information or content that is not user generated but is selected by the provider;
- A platform that functionally has fewer than 50 million distinct, active users in the United States in a calendar month and fewer than 1 billion distinct, active users worldwide in a calendar month; or
- Aspects of websites, mediums, or applications that serve primarily as:
- Peer-to-peer or chat messaging services, such as text messages or applications providing similar services;
- Online marketplaces;
- Payment services;
- Platforms for reviewing other services; or
- Ride-sharing services.
If thirty percent or more of Americans regularly obtain news from an Internet website, medium, or application described in this subsection, the website, medium, or application is rebuttably presumed to be a “social media platform” unless excluded by the terms above.
- “Content moderation” means filtering, selecting, amplifying, curating, or suppressing content for a user to post or view on a social media platform.
- “Content moderator” means a company or person engaged in content moderation.
- “User” means a person who posts, uploads, transmits, shares, or otherwise publishes or receives content through a social media platform while located in the State of Missouri. The term includes a person who has a social media platform account that the social media platform has disabled or locked.
AUTHORITY: sections 407.020, RSMo (Supp. 2020), 407.145, RSMo (1993).
PUBLIC COST: This rule will not cost state agencies or political subdivisions more than five hundred dollars ($500).
PRIVATE COST: This rule will not cost private entities more than five hundred dollars ($500).
NOTICE TO SUBMIT COMMENTS: Anyone may file a statement in support of or in opposition to this proposed rule with the Attorney General’s Office, ATTN: Proposed Rulemaking, Supreme Court Building, 207 W. High Street, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, or by email to regulations@ago.mo.gov. To be considered, comments must be received within thirty (30) days after publication of this notice in the Missouri Register. No public hearing is scheduled.
Summary of Proposed Rule 15 CSR 60-19.010 – Definitions
This proposed rule defines certain terms as those terms are used in the enforcement of the Merchandising Practices Act and regulations made under the Act. In particular, the proposed rule defines certain terms relating to algorithmic choice on social media platforms.
Title 15 – ELECTED OFFICIALS
Division 60 – Attorney General
Chapter 19 – Social Media
15 CSR 60-19.020 Prohibition on Restricting Choice of Content Moderator
PURPOSE: The attorney general administers and enforces the provisions of the Merchandising Practices Act, Chapter 407, RSMo. The attorney general may make rules necessary to the administration and enforcement of the provisions of Chapter 407, RSMo, and, in order to provide notice to the public, may specify the meaning of terms whether or not used in the Act. This rule specifies the meanings of certain terms used in the enforcement of the Act and provides notice to the public of their application. This rule does not contain an exhaustive list of practices that violate the Act. Instead, this rule identifies certain specific practices that violate section 407.020, RSMo.
To provide notice to the public of the basis for the attorney general’s actions, the foundation and rationale set forth in this purpose statement also sets forth more fully the purpose and foundation for 15 CSR 60-19.010 through 15 CSR 60-19.040.
The attorney general has determined that a rulemaking is necessary to carry out the purposes of the MMPA. An enormous proportion of speech currently occurs on social media, increasing every year, and nearly all of that speech is subject to complete control by a small handful of powerful actors. Last year, the Supreme Court made clear that “it is critically important to have a well-functioning sphere of expression, in which citizens have access to information from many sources” because “[t]hat is the whole project of the First Amendment.” Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707, 732–33 (2024). It further made clear that local governments can “protect that access” by “enforcing competition laws.” Id. Having considered this new legal authority and the available evidence, the attorney general has determined that a rulemaking is necessary to clarify how Missouri’s “competition laws” protect the “project of the First Amendment” in the context of social media. Id.
The MMPA prohibits anticompetitive practices, including unlawful consolidation and acts that violate Missouri or federal antitrust laws. “[T]he literal words cover every practice imaginable and every unfairness to whatever degree.” Ports Petroleum Co. v. Nixon, 37 S.W.3d 237, 240 (Mo. banc 2001)). In fact, the MMPA can be used to prosecute violations of other statutes, including anti-competition laws. The MMPA prohibits unfair and deceptive practices. Violations of many other laws are necessarily unfair or deceptive practices. Thus, the Missouri Supreme Court has concluded that the MMPA covers any violation of “any public policy” so long as the violation of that other law “presents a risk” of “substantial injury to consumers.” Huch v. Charter Commun., Inc., 290 S.W.3d 721, 725 (Mo. banc 2009) (quoting 15 CSR 60–8.020(1)). Unlawful consolidation of market power, including anticompetitive acquisition or maintenance of that power, fits well within the meaning of the MMPA.
Unwarranted concentration is problematic in every industry, but it has become particularly pronounced in the context of social media. No longer in their infancy, a handful of large social media companies now hold extraordinary bottlenecking power to control what information millions of Americans see. “Today’s digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors. Also unprecedented, however, is the concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties.” Biden v. Knight First Amend. Inst. at Columbia Univ., 141 S. Ct. 1220, 1221 (2021). Like email, these enormous networks provide access to the speech of billions of others. But unlike email, content moderation on these networks is centrally controlled. Although a person might be restricted from using a specific email server, no person has power to prevent another from using email altogether. Not so for the largest social media platforms.
These companies possess extraordinary power to control what people see and hear on platforms that are akin to the “modern public square.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98, 107 (2017). No person is immune from this control. Even the President of the United States can unilaterally be censored “at any time for any or no reason.” Knight First Amend., 141 S. Ct. at 1221 (quoting terms of service in a case where a social media company fully censored the sitting President).
This proposed rule thus intends to clarify how Missouri’s competition laws apply to content moderation on large social media platforms. In short, this proposed rule will clarify that dominant social media companies cannot acquire or exercise monopoly control over content moderation on the social media platforms they operate. That “unfair practice,” § 407.020, “presents a risk” of “substantial injury to consumers,” Huch, 290 S.W.3d at 725. Those companies may still offer content-moderation services. But to mitigate the harm of market concentration and centralized control, they must permit users equal opportunity to choose among competing content-moderation services.
At the same time, because the harm to consumers comes from concentrated control over large amounts of speech, which exists only among the largest of social media companies, this proposed rule also intends to clarify that smaller and medium-sized platforms do not violate the MMPA simply by not permitting users to choose competitor content moderators.
- It is an unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful practice for any person to operate a social media platform satisfying the numerical threshold in 15 CSR 60-19.010 unless the social media platform permits users the opportunity to select a third-party content moderator of their choice rather than rely on the content moderation provided directly by the social media platform.
- The opportunity to choose is satisfied if:
- Users are provided with a choice screen upon account activation and at least every 6 months thereafter that gives them the opportunity to choose among competing content moderators, if any competing content moderators have sought access to the platform;
- No selection is chosen by default;
- The choice screen does not favor the social media platform’s content moderator over those of third parties;
- When a user chooses a content moderator other than that provided by the social media platform, the social media platform permits that content moderator interoperable access to data on the platform in order to moderate what content is viewed by the user; and
- Except as expressly authorized below, the social media company does not moderate, censor, or suppress content on the social media platform such that a user is unable to view that content if their chosen content moderator would otherwise permit viewing that content.
- The right of a user to choose an alternate content moderator cannot be waived.
- Nothing shall prohibit a social media platform from, in good faith, imposing security requirements on third parties that seek to access the platform for the purpose of third-party content moderation. Such security requirements shall be no greater than necessary to protect privacy information (such as passwords and logins), keep a social media platform resistant to outside hacking or data attacks, and prohibit data scraping.
- Nothing in this regulation shall be construed to prohibit a social media platform from advertising or otherwise promoting its own content moderation service to users so long as the interface used to choose a content moderator does not favor the social media platform’s content moderation choice over others and the social media platform does not override the content moderation decisions of competing content moderators.
- Nothing shall prohibit a social media platform from moderating, restricting, or prohibiting, to the exclusion of other content moderators, content that in the social media company’s good-faith judgment:
- the social media platform is specifically authorized to restrict or moderate by federal law;
- is the subject of a referral or request from an organization with the purpose of preventing the sexual exploitation of children and protecting survivors of sexual abuse from ongoing harassment;
- directly incites criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group because of their race, color, disability, religion, national origin or ancestry, age, sex, or status as a peace officer or judge;
- is sexually explicit; or
- is unlawful expression under laws or regulations consistent with the United States Constitution.
AUTHORITY: sections 407.020, RSMo (Supp. 2020), 407.145, RSMo (1993).
PUBLIC COST: This rule will not cost state agencies or political subdivisions more than five hundred dollars ($500).
PRIVATE COST: This rule will cost private entities up to $41,960,000 for the first year and $11,960,000 for subsequent years.
NOTICE TO SUBMIT COMMENTS: Anyone may file a statement in support of or in opposition to this proposed rule with the Attorney General’s Office, ATTN: Proposed Rulemaking, Supreme Court Building, 207 W. High Street, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, or by email to regulations@ago.mo.gov. To be considered, comments must be received within thirty (30) days after publication of this notice in the Missouri Register. No public hearing is scheduled.
Summary of Proposed Rule 15 CSR 60-19.020 – Prohibition on Restricting Choice of Content Moderator
This rule requires certain social media companies to permit users equal opportunity to choose among competing content-moderation services, in addition to the content-moderation services they themselves provide. Users must be provided with a choice screen upon account activation and at least every 6 months thereafter that gives them the opportunity to choose among competing content moderators.
Title 15 – ELECTED OFFICIALS
Division 60 – Attorney General
Chapter 19 – Social Media
15 CSR 60-19.030 Prohibition on Onerous and Unnecessary Access Requirements
PURPOSE: The attorney general administers and enforces the provisions of the Merchandising Practices Act, Chapter 407, RSMo. The attorney general may make rules necessary to the administration and enforcement of the provisions of Chapter 407, RSMo, and, in order to provide notice to the public, may specify the meaning of terms whether or not used in the Act. This rule specifies the meanings of certain terms used in the enforcement of the Act and provides notice to the public of their application. This rule does not contain an exhaustive list of practices that violate the Act. Instead, this rule identifies certain specific practices that violate section 407.020, RSMo.
- It is an unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful practice for any person operating a social media platform satisfying the numerical threshold in 15 CSR 60-19.010 to set access requirements for third-party content moderators that exceed the requirements permitted by § 60-19.020(4), except that such social media platform may reasonably protect trade secrets and proprietary processes from third party content moderators insofar as such restrictions do not prevent or inhibit the user choice set forth in 15 CSR 60-19.020.
AUTHORITY: sections 407.020, RSMo (Supp. 2020), 407.145, RSMo (1993).
PUBLIC COST: This rule will not cost state agencies or political subdivisions more than five hundred dollars ($500).
PRIVATE COST: This rule will not cost private entities more than five hundred dollars ($500).
NOTICE TO SUBMIT COMMENTS: Anyone may file a statement in support of or in opposition to this proposed rule with the Attorney General’s Office, ATTN: Proposed Rulemaking, Supreme Court Building, 207 W. High Street, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, or by email to regulations@ago.mo.gov. To be considered, comments must be received within thirty (30) days after publication of this notice in the Missouri Register. No public hearing is scheduled.
Summary of Proposed Rule 15 CSR 60-19.030 – Prohibition on Onerous and Unnecessary Access Requirements
The rule clarifies that it is an unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful practice for a social media platform covered by the rule to set access requirements for third-party content moderators that exceed what is necessary to protect privacy information (such as passwords and logins), keep a social media platform resistant to outside hacking or data attacks, and prohibit data scraping. However, social media platform may reasonably protect trade secrets and proprietary processes from third party content moderators.
Title 15 – ELECTED OFFICIALS
Division 60 – Attorney General
Chapter 19 – Social Media
15 CSR 60-19.040 Severability, Construction, and Effective Date
PURPOSE: The attorney general administers and enforces the provisions of the Merchandising Practices Act, Chapter 407, RSMo. The attorney general may make rules necessary to the administration and enforcement of the provisions of Chapter 407, RSMo, and, in order to provide notice to the public, may specify the meaning of terms whether or not used in the Act. This rule specifies the meanings of certain terms used in the enforcement of the Act and provides notice to the public of their application, including the severability of provisions contained in this chapter.
- This chapter applies to the maximum extent permitted by the United States Constitution, the laws of the United States, the Constitution of Missouri, and the laws of Missouri, but no further.
- This chapter does not subject a social media platform to damages or other legal remedies to the extent the social media platform is protected from those remedies under federal law.
- If any application of any provision, word, or clause in this chapter to any person or circumstance is found by a court to be invalid, that application alone shall be severed and the remaining possible applications of every provision, word, and clause to all other persons and circumstances shall remain in force.
- If any court issues an order declaring that any exception created in § 60-19.020 would make any provision of this chapter a content-based regulation subjecting such regulation to heightened scrutiny and declaring that the regulation fails heightened scrutiny, then such exception shall automatically be severed and abolished.
AUTHORITY: sections 407.020, RSMo (Supp. 2020), 407.145, RSMo (1993).
PUBLIC COST: This rule will not cost state agencies or political subdivisions more than five hundred dollars ($500).
PRIVATE COST: This rule will not cost private entities more than five hundred dollars ($500).
NOTICE TO SUBMIT COMMENTS: Anyone may file a statement in support of or in opposition to this proposed rule with the Attorney General’s Office, ATTN: Proposed Rulemaking, Supreme Court Building, 207 W. High Street, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, or by email to regulations@ago.mo.gov. To be considered, comments must be received within thirty (30) days after publication of this notice in the Missouri Register. No public hearing is scheduled.
Summary of Proposed Rule 15 CSR 60-19.040 – Severability and Construction
This rule details the severability and construction of the rules contained in this chapter, specifying that such rules do not penalize any individual otherwise protected by federal law and further stating that if any provision is found to be invalid by a court, such provision will be severed while the remaining portions continue to be effective.