Tragic Loss of Their Children Sparks Hope for Change: Colorado’s Online Child Protection Bill Fails

The parents of the family were left devastated when their aspirations for change were dashed after they sought to safeguard their children in the Colorado Legislature last month and online activism targeting a drug dealer resulted in tragedy.

Among those parents was Lori Shot, who was instrumental in crafting the bill. Her 18-year-old daughter Annaly tragically took her own life in 2020 after engaging with content on TikTok and Instagram related to depression, anxiety, and suicide.

“When lawmakers sidestep votes and shift discussions to an insubstantial calendar date without accountability, it feels like a betrayal to us as parents.” “It’s a betrayal to my daughter and to all the other children we’ve lost.”

Had the law been enacted, it would have necessitated investigations and the removal of accounts engaged in gun and drug sales, or the sexual exploitation and human trafficking of minors on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. It also required a dedicated hotline for law enforcement and a 72-hour response timeframe for police inquiries, which would significantly increase obligations compared to current legal standards.

Additionally, the platforms would have had to report on the usage statistics of minors, including how often and for how long they interacted with content violating company policies. Several major tech firms have taken official stances regarding the bill. As noted in Colorado’s lobbying records, Meta’s long-time lobbying firm, Headwater Strategies, has registered its support for revising the bill. Conversely, Google and TikTok employed lobbyists to oppose it.

“We are deeply disheartened,” said Kim Osterman, whose 18-year-old son Max died in 2021. “[Legislators] prioritized their own interests over the safety of my children and family.”

Protection for Social Media Users (SB 25-086) passed both legislative chambers, only to be vetoed by Democrat Governor Jared Polis on April 24th. His veto was justified by concerns that the bill would “erode privacy, freedom, and innovation.” On April 25, the Colorado Senate voted to override the veto, but on April 28, the House chose to delay the vote until the end of the legislative session, effectively blocking the override and keeping the bill alive.

Originally, the bill had passed the Senate with a 29-6 margin and the House with a 46-18 margin. On April 25, the Senate voted 29-6 for an override, and lawmakers anticipated that the House would take up the matter later that day, believing that there was enough bipartisan support to successfully overturn the veto.

“It was a straightforward vote for people because our goal was clear: to safeguard children from the predatory practices of social media companies,” remarked Senator Lindsey Dorgerty, a Democrat and co-sponsor of the bill. She expressed her disappointment that House leaders chose to sidestep the vote on Friday.

Advocating parents blamed the failure of the bill on an unexpected 11-hour lobbying blitz by The Far Right Gun Owners Association in Colorado. Two state legislators and seven other legislative participants corroborated the parents’ claims.

An unprecedented last-minute campaign disrupts bipartisan consensus

The owner of Rocky Mountain Guns (RMGO) characterized the bill as government censorship related to the statute against “ghost guns” assembled from kits purchased online.

RMGO initiated an extensive social media and email campaign, rallying its 200,000 members to contact lawmakers and voice their opposition to the bill. Sources familiar with the workings of the Colorado State Capitol explained that the gun group’s outreach included social media and text campaigns that encouraged Republican constituents to reach out to their representatives in opposition.

“[Legislators] were inundated with calls and emails from activists. It was an all-out assault. A campaign declared, ‘This is a government censorship bill,'” they stated.

The group’s actions contributed to efforts preventing Republicans from backing the veto override, leading to the bill’s demise. According to ten individuals involved in the bill’s development and the legislative process, this lobbying effort appeared unexpectedly robust, fueled by organizations that had previously faced financial constraints. An anonymous source from the Colorado State Capitol shared insights with the Guardian, citing fears of retaliation from RMGO.

The House of Representatives postponed its vote until April 28th, providing RMGO time to amplify its campaign over the weekend. When lawmakers reconvened on Monday, the House voted 51-13 to delay the override until the legislative session concluded, effectively dissolving the effort.

A significant text messaging initiative targeted registered Republican voters, alleging that the social media bill “forces platforms to enforce extensive surveillance of content shared on their platforms,” claiming violations of Colorado’s gun laws, and framing the legislation as an affront to First and Second Amendment rights, according to texts reviewed by the Guardian.

A recurring adversary

Established in 1996, RMGO claims a membership exceeding 200,000 activists. It is recognized as a far-right organization staunchly opposed to regulations on firearms. Dudley Brown, its founder and leader president of the National Gun Rights Association, diverges significantly from the perspective of the National Rifle Association (NRA). RMGO is criticized for employing tactics labeled as “bullying” and “extremist” against both Democrats and moderate Republicans. The group has not responded to requests for commentary regarding legislative measures.

RMGO is a well-known presence at the Colorado State Capitol, typically opposing gun control measures. Daugherty described their usual campaign tactics as “intimidating.” Following backlash for her involvement in a bill banning assault weapons earlier this year, she deactivated her social media account.

“While advocating for gun legislation at the Capitol, RMGO published images of me and other legislators on their website,” she noted. An RMGO tweet depicted Daugherty alongside a bold “Traitor” stamp.

The group disseminated misinformation regarding the bill’s implications on gun ownership, as reported by sources who participated in the legislative discussions.

“My support for the bill and the veto override stemmed from concerns about child trafficking and safeguarding children,” stated Republican Senator Rod Pelton, who voted in favor of overriding the veto in the Senate. “I did not subscribe to the entire argument pertaining to the second amendment.”

The bill garnered support from 23 district attorneys in Colorado as well as bipartisan backing from the state House of Representatives.

RMGO’s late-stage opposition to the social media bill deviated from its usual tactics. Typically, the organization weighs in on legislation early in the process, according to eight sources, including co-sponsors Daugherty and Representative Andy Boesenecker.

“Their surge of focused efforts caught my attention,” Boesenecker remarked. “It was curious to note that their resistance materialized so late in the process and appeared to be well-financed.”

In recent years, RMGO has experienced reduced activity attributed to financial difficulties that limited their legislative campaigning capacity. In a 2024 interview, the organization’s leader candidly acknowledged struggles with fundraising. Daugherty believes RMGO’s capacity for such a substantial outreach campaign would be unlikely without considerable funding. Others within Colorado’s political landscape echoed this sentiment.

“The Rocky Mountain Gun Owners had been largely ineffective in the legislature for several years due to financial constraints. Suddenly, they increased their influence, seemingly backed by substantial funds,” said Dawn Reinfeld, from a Colorado-based nonprofit focused on youth rights.

This context caused lawmakers to feel pressured, especially concerning primary elections in their districts, following RMGO’s recent social media attacks on supporters of the bill.

“There was a palpable concern among many about party affiliation; it certainly played a role,” remarked Dorgerty.

Aaron Ping’s 16-year-old son, Avery, passed away from an overdose in December after buying what he believed to be ecstasy on Snapchat, only to receive a substance laced with fentanyl instead. Ping viewed the organized opposition to the bill as a purposeful distortion.

“The narrative painted the bill as an infringement on gun rights, depicting it as merely a tool for targeting people purchasing illegal firearms online,” he stated.

Ping had testified in support of the bill alongside other families, recovering teens, and district attorneys back in February before the initial Senate vote.

“This bill carried the hope that Avery’s legacy would incite change; its rejection was truly disheartening,” Ping shared.

In the absence of federal action, states initiate online child safety legislation

A number of states, including California, Maryland, Vermont, Minnesota, Hawaii, Illinois, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Nevada, have introduced legislation over the past two years aimed at enhancing online safety for minors. These initiatives encounter vigorous resistance from the technology sector, which includes extensive lobbying efforts and legal challenges.

Maryland successfully passed the Children’s Code bill in May 2024, marking it as the first state to enact such legislation. However, this victory may be short-lived. The high-tech industry coalition, NetChoice, representing companies such as Meta, Google, and Amazon, has already launched legal challenges against these measures.

In the meanwhile, federal efforts have stalled, with the Children’s Online Safety Act (KOSA) faltering in February after failing to pass the House despite years of modifications and deliberations. A newly revised version of the bill was reintroduced in Congress on May 14th.

California’s similar initiative, the age-appropriate design code law, which mirrors UK legislation, was halted in late 2023 following a NetChoice injunction citing potential First Amendment infringements.