The Safer Guarding of Adolescents from Malicious Interactions on Network Games Act (Safer GAMING Act) requires providers of interactive online video games to supply parents of users under 18 with safeguards that limit communications between the minor and any other user. The safeguards must be enabled by default, accessible, and can be disabled only by the parent; the rule takes effect one year after enactment.
The bill sets enforcement through the Federal Trade Commission by treating violations as unfair or deceptive acts under the FTC Act and preserves a limited role for state attorneys general to bring parens patriae suits, while preempting other state or local laws on the same topic. For game companies, the statute creates new compliance obligations, potential data-collection pressure to establish user age, and a uniform federal standard that displaces state-level variation.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires interactive online video game providers to provide parents of users under 18 with tools to limit communications between the minor and other users. Those parental controls must be enabled by default, easy to use, and removable only by the parent of the minor.
Who It Affects
The rule applies to any entity that provides an interactive online video game directly to consumers (websites, apps, consoles, etc.) and that knows a particular account belongs to a minor. It implicates game publishers, platform operators, and any third-party services that host in-game chat or matchmaking tied to identifiable accounts.
Why It Matters
The Act creates a single federal compliance regime for in-game communication controls and places enforcement with the FTC—raising practical questions about age verification, data collection, and design trade-offs between safety and user privacy. Companies that operate across states gain regulatory uniformity but face immediate technical and legal choices about how to prove a user is a minor or a parent.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill defines the covered universe narrowly: an “interactive online video game” is any internet-connected game that allows users to communicate with one another. A “covered user” is a player the provider knows is a minor (under 18); an “adult user” is someone the provider knows is not a minor.
The bill adopts a strict knowledge standard—actual knowledge or willful disregard—so providers who deliberately ignore signals of a minor account count as knowing.
For any covered user, the provider must give the parent safeguards that limit the minor’s communications with other users, including adults. Those safeguards must be enabled by default on the minor’s account, be accessible and easy to use, and be able to be disabled only by the parent.
The Act also requires that the most protective privacy/safety settings include those safeguards by default and that only a parent can turn them off for a minor.Enforcement is civil and carried out primarily by the Federal Trade Commission: a violation is treated as an unfair or deceptive act under the FTC Act. The FTC gains the same investigatory and remedial powers it uses elsewhere, and the statute expressly leaves the agency’s other authorities intact.
States can sue as parens patriae to stop violations and seek relief, but a pending federal enforcement action against a named defendant limits parallel state suits. A standalone preemption clause bars states and localities from imposing other laws, rules, or standards covering the same area.The safeguards requirement becomes effective one year after the Act’s enactment.
The bill does not prescribe particular technical methods for age or parent verification, nor does it provide a private right of action for individuals; remedies flow through the FTC or state parens patriae actions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill applies only when a provider ‘knows’ an account belongs to a minor—‘know’ is defined to include actual knowledge or willful disregard, creating an incentive to avoid obvious indicators of youth.
Safeguards must be enabled by default and can be disabled only by the account holder’s parent; the statute requires the ‘most protective’ settings to include these controls.
The statute takes effect 1 year after enactment, giving providers a fixed implementation window rather than immediate applicability.
The FTC enforces violations under the unfair or deceptive acts provision of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)), meaning the agency can seek civil remedies and use its full investigative powers.
The Act preempts state and local laws on the same subject but preserves state parens patriae suits except where a federal action against the same defendant is pending.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the Act its formal names: the Safer Guarding of Adolescents from Malicious Interactions on Network Games Act and the Safer GAMING Act. This is a standard header but signals the bill’s focus on adolescent safety as its stated federal policy objective.
Who and what the statute covers
Sets the operative definitions: 'interactive online video game' (internet-connected and allows user-to-user communication), 'covered user' (provider knows user is a minor), 'know/knows' (actual knowledge or willful disregard), 'minor' (under 18), 'online video game provider' (entity that provides the game directly to consumers), and 'parent' (legal guardian). Those definitions shape scope: the bill targets games with social features and turns on what providers know about account holders, not on a developer’s intent or the game’s age rating.
Default parental controls and parental-only disable
Requires providers to offer safeguards that let a parent limit communications between the covered user and any other user. The safeguards must be accessible, enabled by default on covered-user accounts, and disable-able only by the parent. The section also instructs that the 'most protective' privacy setting must include these safeguards by default. The provision leaves technical design choices to providers but fixes three nonnegotiable UX rules: default-on, parent-only disable, and accessibility.
Compliance window
Makes the safeguards requirement effective one year after enactment. That timing gives companies a defined period to adjust systems, but it also creates a hard deadline for implementing age-detection, parent verification, and UX changes that may interact with other legal obligations.
Federal enforcement mechanism and remedies
Declares violations of the safeguards to be unfair or deceptive acts under the FTC Act and gives the FTC the same powers, jurisdiction, and remedies it normally uses. The section thereby channels enforcement through administrative investigations, civil penalties, injunctions, and other remedies available under the FTC’s statutory authority.
State parens patriae authority and federal preemption
Allows state attorneys general to sue as parens patriae to stop violations and obtain restitution, but requires prior notice to the FTC and bars state suits against defendants named in a pending federal action. Separately, the Act preempts any state or local law that 'relates to' the Act’s subject matter, creating a singular federal standard and limiting the ability of states to impose alternative or stricter rules.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Technology across all five countries.
Explore Technology in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Parents and legal guardians — gain default, parent-only-disable controls that give them immediate authority to limit who their child can message or interact with inside games.
- Minors (users under 18) — receive a presumption of stronger privacy and communication protections by default, reducing the likelihood of unsolicited contacts with adults or unknown users.
- Child-safety advocacy organizations — obtain a clear statutory lever and a federal enforcement channel (FTC) to push for implementation and enforcement of protections across the industry.
Who Bears the Cost
- Online video game providers and platform operators — must design, implement, and maintain default parental-control features, integrate age/parent verification workflows, and potentially rearchitect account systems to track parental permissions.
- Small developers and indie publishers — may face disproportionate compliance costs if the law’s coverage (providers who supply games directly to consumers) includes smaller app makers that lack mature account and verification systems.
- User privacy and security teams — may need to collect additional identity or age-verification data to establish knowledge that an account belongs to a minor, raising operational costs and new data-protection obligations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between protecting minors through strong, parent-controlled defaults and avoiding measures that force companies to collect or verify sensitive identity data; the bill solves the former by mandating default, parent-only-disable controls but exacerbates the latter by making compliance turn on whether a provider 'knows' an account belongs to a minor—pushing firms toward either intrusive verification or legal risk via willful-disregard liability, all under a single federal standard that extinguishes state-level experimentation.
The bill leaves major implementation questions unresolved. It requires providers to act when they 'know' an account belongs to a minor but does not mandate a particular age-verification standard or parental-authentication method.
Because 'know' includes willful disregard, companies face a compliance trap: collecting more evidence of age reduces the risk of being treated as having 'known,' but collecting more evidence can require intrusive identity checks that raise privacy and data-protection costs and increase legal exposure under other laws. The text does not reconcile these competing pressures.
The interplay with existing federal statutes is also ambiguous. The Act covers minors up to 18, whereas COPPA regulates online services toward children under 13 and contains explicit parental-consent mechanisms; the Safer GAMING Act does not reference COPPA or explain coordination.
Enforcement via the FTC centralizes remedies, but the availability of state parens patriae suits—coupled with a broad preemption clause—creates an unusual mix: states can enforce but cannot legislate in this space, and a pending federal suit can block parallel state actions against the same defendant. Practically, this raises questions about how quickly and uniformly enforcement will proceed and whether the FTC has the bandwidth to police a broad, design-driven mandate across thousands of games and platforms.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.