The internet allows people everywhere to connect, share ideas, and advocate for change without needing immense resources or technical expertise. Congress recognized that for user speech to thrive on the internet, it had to protect the services that power users’ speech, from email to Yelp to Etsy to Reddit. 

Without Section 230’s protections, many online platforms would intensively filter and censor user speech, while others may simply not host user content at all. Section 230’s balanced legal and policy framework allows the internet we know to exist. Congress should not change it.

Amicus brief filed by EFF, the ACLU, and other legal advocacy organizations urging a federal judge to strike down President Trump's March 6, 2025 executive order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) writes to reiterate our opposition to the Strengthening Transparency and Obligation to Protect Children Suffering from Abuse and Mistreatment Act of 2023 (STOP CSAM Act). We opposed the original version of the STOP CSAM Act in the previous Congress, and we are concerned to see the Committee moving to consider the same flawed ideas in the current Congress. While we appreciate the robust conversations we’ve had with the staff of the sponsors of the bills, our concerns remain. 

We understand that the sponsors of these bills say their legislation is intended to protect children from online sexual exploitation—an important and laudable goal. But laudable goals do not always make good law. We urge the Committee to find a different way to address this problem.

Back to EFF One-Pager Handouts List

A cease-and-desist letter sent by lawyers for Flock Safety to DeFlock.me. This letter is part of the blog post "Anti-Surveillance Mapmaker Refuses Flock Safety's Cease and Desist Demand."

EFF response to review questionnaire of the EU-US Data Privacy Framework (DPF)

California Law Enforcement Communications System misuse data from 2019-2023 provided by the California Department of Justice in response to California Public Records Act requests. This data is associated with the 2025 blog post, "California Police Misused State Databases More Than 7,000 Times in 2023."

The file titled "CLETS Misuse 2019-2023 Compiled" is an attempt by EFF staff to consolidate data from the five-year period in one spreadsheet. The zip file "CLETS Misuse 2019-2023 Raw Data and Records" contains the raw documents EFF received, however in many cases the information contains data errors and duplication.

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT between California and Apple to provision a digital credential for California driver's license holders.

The Kids Online Safety Act, now S. 2073, commonly referred to as KOSA, is an online censorship bill that passed the Senate in July. The bill allows the Federal Trade Commission to sue apps and websites that don’t take measures to “prevent and mitigate” various harms to minors, including anxiety, depression, substance use, and eating disorders. Mitigating such harms is worthwhile, but KOSA doesn’t do the job. KOSA is an unconstitutional censorship bill that gives the FTC, and potentially state Attorneys General, the power to restrict protected online speech they find objectionable.  

Consumer-focused, comprehensive federal privacy laws would protect young people without infringing on the First Amendment rights of everyone who uses the internet. Stronger competition laws would open the field and force platforms to innovate, offering more user choice for parents and teens. 

Online child safety is a complex issue. Many recent proposals have tried to require platforms to verify users’ ages in order to see various types of content or access critical services. But without fail, these “age assurance,” “age verification,” or “age estimation” systems hurt user privacy and increase the risks of identity theft. 

No method of age verification is both privacy-protective and entirely accurate. These methods don’t each fit somewhere on a spectrum of “more safe” and “less safe,” or “more accurate” and “less accurate.” Rather, they each fall on a spectrum of “dangerous in one way” to “dangerous in a different way.” 

Solutions often involve offering a variety of age determination options, but this only glosses over the fact that every solution has serious privacy, accuracy, or security problems. This puts the burden on the individual to decide whether they are most concerned with accuracy or privacy, generally, without giving them the tools they need to determine which option is safest for them.

07-24-2024 Channel 781 News v. Waltham Community Access Corporation complaint

The Kids Online Safety Act (H.R. 7891), commonly referred to as KOSA, was introduced as a companion to S. 1409. Although the two bills have slight differences, their substance is the same. Both bills impose a “duty of care” on apps and websites to prevent their “design features” from causing harm to minors – including anxiety, depression, substance use, and eating disorders. Mitigating such harms is worthwhile, but KOSA doesn’t do the job. Both versions are unconstitutional censorship bills that would give the FTC, and potentially state Attorneys General, the power to restrict protected online speech they find objectionable.  KOSA’s “duty of care” provision will stifle online speech, and KOSA will also result in online services imposing age-verification systems to prevent minors from having the same access to content as adults. These systems require everyone—adults and minors—to verify their age.

Better Options Exist

EFF urges legislators to seek alternatives to KOSA. Consumer focused, comprehensive federal privacy law would protect young people without infringing on the First Amendment rights of everyone who uses on the internet. Stronger competition laws would open the field and force platforms to innovate, offering more user choice for parents and teens.

2024 Cyberlaw Trivia Slides

EFF Opposition Letter Re: Assembly Bill 3080

California A.B. 3080, 2023-24 Legislature.

EFF FY22-23 audited financial statements

This letter to the Calexico City Council was originally transmitted on May 14, 2024. However, the letter was re-sent on May 15 with the addition of the Southern Border Communities Coalition as an additional signatory.

03-18-2024 ALPR letter to Alameda County Sheriff's Office