What’s New in COPPA 2.0? A Summary of the Proposed Changes
On November 25th, U.S. House Energy and Commerce introduced a comprehensive bill package to advance child online privacy and safety, which included its own version of the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA 2.0”) to modernize COPPA. First enacted in 1998, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is a federal law that provides important online protections for children’s data. Now that the law is nearly 30 years old, many advocates, stakeholders, and Congressional lawmakers are pushing to amend COPPA to ensure its data protections are reflective and befitting of the online environments youth experience today.
The new House version of COPPA 2.0, introduced by Reps. Tim Walberg (R-MI) and Laurel Lee (R-FL), would amend the law by adding new definitions, revising the knowledge standard, augmenting core requirements, and adding in new substantive provisions. Although the new COPPA 2.0 introduction marks meaningful progress in the House, it is not the first attempt to update COPPA. The Senate has pursued COPPA reforms since as early as 2021, and Senators Markey (D-MA) and Cassidy (R-LA) most recently reintroduced their version of this framework in March 2025–one that is distinguishable from this new House version in several meaningful ways. Note: For more information on the exact deviations between the current Senate and House versions of COPPA 2.0, click the button below for a redline comparison of these two proposals.
Putting all the dynamic COPPA 2.0 legislative activity into focus–this blog post summarizes notable changes to COPPA under the House proposal and notes key divergence points from the long-standing Senate framework. In sum, a few key takeaways include:
- An evolving scope: proposed changes to raise the age threshold to include protections for teens, implement a two-tiered knowledge standard with a constructive knowledge component for large social media companies, and codify an expanded definition of personal information would significantly broaden the statute’s scope.
- New takes on substantive obligations and rights: alongside augmenting several existing obligations, the House proposal would introduce significant new provisions, including a direct ban on targeted advertising, expanded data minimization standards, and new limits on international data transfers without consent.
- Significant preemption language: significantly, the proposed language would broadly preempt state laws that relate to provisions of COPPA as amended by this legislation.
Scope and Definitions
While there are many technical amendments proposed in the House COPPA 2.0 legislation to clarify existing provisions in COPPA, there are four key additions and modifications in the bill that significantly alter its scope and application. First, the bill expands protections to teens. While current COPPA protections only cover children up to the age of 13, COPPA 2.0 would expand protections to include teens under the age of 17.
Second, the bill would revise the definition of “personal information” to match the expanded interpretation established through FTC regulations, which includes subcategories such as geolocation data, biometric identifiers, and persistent identifiers (e.g. IP address and cookies), among others. The proposed definitions for these categories largely follow the COPPA rule definitions, except for a notable difference to the definition of biometric identifiers.
Specifically, COPPA 2.0 includes a broader definition of biometric identifiers by removing the requirement that processed characteristics “can be used” for individual identification that was included in the COPPA Rule definition. Therefore, under the new text, any processing of an individual’s biological or behavioral traits–such as fingerprints, voiceprints, retinal scans, facial templates, DNA, and gait–would qualify as a biometric identifier, even if the information is not capable of or intended for identifying an individual. The broader definition of biometric identifiers embraced by the House may have noteworthy implications for state privacy laws, which typically limit definitions of biometric information to data “that is used” to identify an individual. In contrast, to the House approach, the Senate proposal for COPPA 2.0 adopts a definition of biometric identifiers that is limited to characteristics “that are used” to identify an individual.
Third, COPPA 2.0 would formally codify the long-standing school consent exception used in COPPA compliance and FTC guidance for over a decade. As a result, operators acting under an agreement with educational agencies or institutions would be exempted from the law’s parental consent requirements with respect to students, though notably, the proffered definition of “educational agency or institution” would only capture public schools, not private schools and institutions.
Lastly, one of the most significant proposed modifications to COPPA’s scope involves the knowledge standard. Currently, COPPA requires operators to comply with the law’s obligations when they have actual knowledge that they are collecting the personal information of children under 13 or when they operate a website or online service that is directed towards children. The House version of COPPA 2.0 would establish a two-tiered standard that largely maintains the actual knowledge threshold for operators, except for “high-impact social media companies” who would be subject to an actual knowledge or willful disregard standard. The House’s use of an actual knowledge or willful disregard standard for large social media companies tracks with the emerging trend in some state privacy laws that provide heightened online protections for youth, which have more broadly employed the actual knowledge or willful disregard standard. In contrast, the Senate COPPA 2.0 proposal includes a novel and untested “actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances” standard.
Substantive Obligations and Rights
The House version of COPPA 2.0 would both augment existing COPPA protections and add in new substantive obligations and provisions significant for compliance. Notable amendments proposed in this new legislation to augment COPPA protections include:
- Prohibition on targeted advertising: COPPA 2.0 would outright ban targeted advertising practices, referred to as “individual-specific advertising,” with no consent exceptions. This ban on targeted advertising does not include search advertising, contextual advertising, or ad attribution.
- Opt-in consent for Teens: Importantly, to balance considerations around teen autonomy, covered operators would need to obtain opt-in consent from teens aged 13-16 for PI collection and processing, but parental consent would still be required for children under the age of 13. The adoption of an opt-in consent model for teens largely aligns with state comprehensive privacy law approaches to teen consent.
- New data minimization principles for PI collection: COPPA 2.0 would maintain the COPPA rule’s data retention limit, requiring operators to retain personal information collected from a child “for only as long as is reasonably necessary to fulfill the specific purpose(s) for which the information was collected.” However, COPPA 2.0 would mandate a different data minimization standard for the collection of child PI, requiring that operators limit collection of a child’s or teen’s PI to what is “consistent with the context of a particular transaction or service or the relationship of the child or teen with the operator, including any collection necessary to fulfill a transaction or provide a product or service requested by a child or teen.”
- Expanding data access and deletion rights: Existing rights of parental review under COPPA are limited to a parent’s ability to request information on the types of child PI collected by an operator and obtain a copy of that PI, and to withdraw consent for further collection, use, and maintenance of collected data. COPPA 2.0 would bolster data access rights by providing parents and teens with the right to access, correct, or delete PI collected by covered operators upon request. The expansion of data rights proposed by COPPA 2.0 more closely aligns with data subject rights observed in state comprehensive privacy laws.
In addition to amendments that bolster existing COPPA protections, several amendments also add in notable substantive provisions:
- Exploring the feasibility of a common consent mechanism: COPPA 2.0 would direct the FTC to study the feasibility of allowing operators to use a common verifiable consent mechanism to fulfill the statute’s consent obligations, which would allow a single operator to obtain consent from a parent or teen on behalf of multiple operators providing “joint or related services.” At a time when additional layers of parental consent for child data collection are required by COPPA regulations and applicable state laws, such a mechanism, if feasible, could help alleviate some of the frictions experienced under existing requirements.
- International data transfer restrictions: COPPA 2.0 would make it illegal for an operator to, without providing notice to a child’s parent or teen, store the personal information of a child or teen in a covered nation (North Korea, China, Russia, or Iran), transfer such information to a covered nation, or provide a covered nation with access to such information. In contrast, the Senate’s COPPA 2.0 proposal does not include these same international data transfer restrictions.
- Preemption: COPPA 2.0 proposes significant preemption language that would nullify any state laws or provisions that “relate to” the provisions and protections under the Act. Such far-reaching preemption language could impact many state privacy and online safety laws that have been enacted in the last few years. Comparatively, the House proposal takes a much broader approach to preemption than the Senate framework, which largely maintains COPPA’s existing preemption language.
Looking Ahead
Enacting COPPA 2.0 would expand online privacy protections for children and teens; and the fact that both chambers have introduced proposals underscores the growing legislative momentum to enshrine stronger youth privacy protections at the federal level. And yet, despite the Congressional motivation to advance legislation on youth privacy and safety this session, it is notable that the House version of COPPA 2.0 does not have the same bipartisan support as its Senate counterpart. What the exact impact of the lack of bipartisan support will mean for the future of the House’s COPPA 2.0 proposal remains subject to speculation. However, FPF will continue to monitor the development of COPPA 2.0 legislation alongside the progression of other bills included in the robust House Energy & Commerce youth online privacy and safety legislative package.