A practical briefing for engineers, product architects, and technology leaders

Technology leadership is no longer just about innovation—it is about responsibility and risk management. This year, Congress took a historic step by introducing the Sunset Section 230 Act, bipartisan legislation that would eliminate long-standing liability protections for online platforms and services. Rather than incrementally reforming digital safety law, this bill would repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, ending the immunity that has shaped internet architecture for nearly three decades.

Senate Judiciary +1

The practical effect? Developers and platforms could be directly exposed to litigation for harms that occur on or via their products—especially harms involving children—unless they can demonstrate reasonable, proactive safety design.

Section 230: What It Is and What’s Changing

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230) was enacted in 1996 as part of the broader Telecommunications Act. Its core purpose is to protect providers of “interactive computer services” from legal liability for third-party content hosted on their platforms. Under current law:

• Platforms “shall not be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider,” shielding them from most civil suits over user content.

• Platforms also enjoy “Good Samaritan” protection for content moderation done in good faith.

Congress.gov

Section 230 has been credited with allowing the internet to grow without the threat of endless litigation over every bad post, comment, or upload. But today’s proposals would eliminate that shield, letting harmed individuals sue internet services with far fewer impediments. The Sunset Section 230 Act would repeal Section 230 two years after enactment, enabling courts to hear claims that platforms’ design and architecture contributed to real-world harm.

Senate Judiciary

Why This Matters for Child Safety

For years, platforms have relied on Section 230 to justify minimal safety designs—particularly in spaces where children are present. Yet comprehensive research and advocacy, combined with evolving global law, show that this approach is no longer viable:

1. U.S. Child Safety and Privacy Law is Becoming More Demanding

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) requires websites and online services to impose privacy protections for users under 13, including verifiable parental consent and limits on data collection. Non-compliance can lead to enforcement actions and fines from the Federal Trade Commission.

Federal Trade Commission

1. International Standards are Shifting Toward Safety-by-Design

Europe’s Digital Services Act (DSA) obligates online services to take proportionate measures to protect minors from harmful content such as abuse, grooming, and exploitation; Member States can impose fines of up to 6 percent of annual global turnover for breaches.

Digital Strategy

Meanwhile, the UK’s Age Appropriate Design Code (the “Children’s Code”) explicitly requires platforms to build children’s privacy and safety protections into service design—recognizing different developmental needs and privacy expectations.

ICO

1. Developers Could Lose Legal Shielding for Harmful Outcomes

If Section 230 is sunset, courts will weigh whether a service’s design, defaults, and data flows contributed to harm. Without immunity, companies could be liable for negligence or product defects, especially in cases involving children. This is not some distant theoretical risk: bipartisan sponsors of the Sunset Section 230 Act justified the bill precisely on the argument that platforms should no longer be shielded when their services facilitate harm to children or other vulnerable users.

Senate Judiciary

The Regulatory Gap and Developer Exposure

Even as U.S. policymakers debate reforms, global child safety laws continue to tighten—and many lack the clear age thresholds or tools developers need to operationalize safety.

The result is a patchwork of obligations that changes with geography, user age, and evolving case law:

COPPA’s verifiable parental consent and data minimization requirements in the U.S.

GDPR’s child data protections (often called GDPR-K) in the EU, with varying consent ages by Member State.

Pandectes

Age-appropriate design standards that extend beyond privacy to include engagement, recommendations, and content risk.

ICO

Without embedded, system-level protections, companies may find themselves vulnerable to litigation in multiple jurisdictions—even if local law does not currently mandate specific safety features.

Safety-by-Design vs. Reactive Moderation

It is one thing to respond to complaints, reports, or take-down requests. It is another to demonstrate that safety was engineered into the path of every interaction involving a minor user.

Law enforcement, privacy regulators, and courts are increasingly interested not just in what platforms moderate, but how they architect safety into the runtime of their systems. A product that passively waits for harmful content to be reported is far more exposed than one that actively detects risk states and mitigates them in real time.

RoseShield: A Compliance Engine for Modern Safety

In this new landscape, developers need more than policies or moderation APIs. They need a safety-by-design compliance engine that:

• Detects child presence and risk context in real time

RoseShield embeds on-device detection of child users using behavioral and contextual signals, eliminating reliance on self-reported ages or centralized profiling.

• Activates age-appropriate safeguards before harm occurs

Rather than after the fact, RoseShield triggers device-level protections that adapt to the user’s context, content risk, and developmental considerations.

• Maintains privacy and legal defensibility

By keeping sensitive detection on device and avoiding data exports, RoseShield reduces data collection exposures while generating the evidence developers need to show they met a duty of care.

• Aligns with global regulatory frameworks

RoseShield’s architectural compliance model anticipates the requirements of COPPA, GDPR-K, the UK Age Appropriate Design Code, the EU Digital Services Act, and similar standards emerging around the world—giving developers a unified compliance baseline.

What Developers Should Do Now

The industry stands at a crossroads:

Waiting for legal clarity is no longer a defensible strategy.

Laws will lag. Jurisdictions will diverge. Courts will test liability theories. In that environment, code becomes the compliance framework.

Developers should:

Treat child safety as architectural design rather than policy plug-ins.

Evaluate their systems for foreseeable risk states and real-time mitigation.

Adopt safety-by-design engines like RoseShield and ChildSafe.dev that operate before harm escalates.

Document and evidence safety decisions as part of product risk governance.

When Section 230 fades—and sunset bills introduced this year make that plausible—companies without proactive safety design may find themselves in court arguing choices they never intended to make.

By building privacy-preserving, real-time safety mechanisms now, developers not only protect children but also protect their products, their companies, and their users in a world where legal immunity is no longer a given.