Policy Update: October 2026

The Senate Finally Moves, then Doesn’t

Congress entered its August recess following a flurry of legislative activity, including an August 5 markup of child online safety bills by the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee:

• • S. 4407, CHATBOT Act
  • S. 4199, Youth AI Privacy Act
  • S. 5171, Children’s Artificial Intelligence Toy Safety Act 
  • S. 1748, Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA)
  • S. 737, SCREEN Act

The committee voted to advance four of the bills to the full Senate, with minimal changes to each. The CHATBOT Act and the Youth AI Privacy Act, sponsored by Ted Cruz (R-TX) Ed Markey (D-MA), respectively, both regulate AI chatbots when used by children. The CHATBOT Act relies on parental monitoring and controls, whereas the Youth AI Privacy Act restricts data collections, sets minimum safety standards, and funds research. The Children’s Artificial Intelligence Toy Safety Act requires a study of AI-enabled toys and a subsequent action plan regarding the marketing and sale of such toys. KOSA passed in its near complete form as originally drafted, including a duty of care provision and coverage of a range of mental health harms. The SCREEN Act requires age-verification to access websites hosting adult content. It failed to advance out of the Committee.

Despite this progress, Congress did not take further action on the four bills during its brief September session, adjourning a few days early for its October recess without advancing any of the digital governance bills before the end of the year.

Back to School: A Changing Landscape for Technology Policies

The 2026-2027 school year is underway and families across the country are encountering new school technology  policies, or wading into conversations about them for the first time. There are two areas of policy development particularly important for parents, educators, and students: personal device restrictions and school technology guidelines.

Personal device policies (aka “smartphone bans”) generally focus on when and how students may use their phones and other personal devices during the school day. School technology guidelines address how educational institutions use or incorporate digital tools. This may include laptops, educational software, and AI.

Personal Device Restrictions

The breadth and scope of personal device policies depend on the state and sometimes even the school itself. Forty-five states and Washington D.C. have enacted policies governing smartphone usage in K-12 schools. Of those, twenty-two states and Washington D.C. have bell-to-bell smartphone bans. These are bans on using personal devices for the duration of the school day. The remainder of states have policies which fall on a spectrum of restrictions and requirements. Some, like Washington State, have guidelines that limit cellphone use in school, however even these states are preparing for stricter bans. Other states, like Alaska, require school districts to adopt some form of personal device policy, and may even encourage limits, but do not dictate what schools have to do or how. The remainder have varying degrees of restrictions, but often exactly how a policy is implemented is up to the individual district.

Even among states adopting bell-to-bell bans, the details are regularly left up to districts, or even individual schools. In New York schools, students cannot have their device in their possession, but how a school sequesters student devices is left up to the school. In Illinois, schools must adopt policies prohibiting personal device use during the school day, but the law does not specify if devices must be removed from students’ possession. The state also permits exceptions for high schools.

Although the details vary widely, several common themes emerge across these policies:

• • There are exceptions for Individualized Education Programs (i.e. special education);
  • School personnel are protected from liability for damaged, lost, or stolen devices as long as they are acting in good faith;
  • Disciplinary measures are often addressed, but there is inconsistency between states and districts. For instance in some cases schools are prohibited from immediately suspending students, in others there is little specification on appropriate disciplinary actions; 
  • Schools typically must have a means for students and parents to contact each other, but the method is often left up to the school; 
  • Many policies allow additional exceptions, including for students who are caretakers, students with medical needs (such as blood sugar monitors), and staff-identified exceptions.

School Technology Use

A second, emerging area of policymaking addresses the technologies schools themselves provide or incorporate into their instruction. These might include policies governing AI, 1:1 devices like laptops, and educational software, among others. While most states have had recommendations or licensing standards for years, some states are now moving to pass specific legislation targeting how or if screens can be used in early childhood education. These policies often focus on full technology restrictions for children under age two and strict limits for children ages 2-5, as well as requirements for adult engagement alongside tech use. They may cover older children as well, such as West Virginia’s proposal to limit screen use in grades 3 and below. In some cases, like in Alabama, these new laws also include teacher training mandates.

Some districts are implementing policies independent of state action. The Los Angeles Unified School District has banned screen time (with some exceptions) for grades 2 and below, and the San Diego Unified School District passed a resolution limiting the use of some technologies in classrooms and launching a year-long process to develop additional recommendations.

More than half of U.S. states have issued AI guidance for grades K-12. These address how students use AI in addition to how schools use AI. Five states have the most comprehensive policies: California, North Carolina, Ohio, Utah, and Vermont. Their policies often treat AI as an enhancer, allowing it to augment but not replace human-led instruction; they also require human oversight, take care to comply with existing privacy laws, and address product vetting to some degree. Many states and school districts are still determining how they want to govern AI, and policies are likely to change as more information evolves.