Arizona Republicans Among House's Most Surprising 'No' Votes on KIDS Act
As four Arizona Republicans cast surprise "no" votes on the KIDS Act, Google rolls out new reminders about the parental controls and child safety tools already built into its platform.
TL;DR: Congress passed the KIDS Act, but Arizona's House delegation overwhelmingly voted no. Only Reps. Juan Ciscomani and Abraham Hamadeh supported the bill, while seven Arizona lawmakers joined bipartisan opposition over privacy and online age verification concerns. At the same time, Google rolls out new Terms of Service aimed at parents and families showing the debate over online child safety is already playing out beyond Capitol Hill.
7 of 9 Arizona House Members Reject KIDS Act as Bipartisan Opposition Emerges Nationwide
Two members of Arizona’s nine-member House delegation voted in favor of the KIDS Act Monday night, while the remaining seven, including both Republicans and Democrats, opposed the legislation in a rare display of bipartisan dissent.
Reps. Juan Ciscomani (AZ-6) and Abraham Hamadeh (AZ-8) supported the bill. Voting no were Republicans David Schweikert, Eli Crane, Andy Biggs, and Paul Gosar, along with Democrats Yassamin Ansari, Greg Stanton, and Adelita Grijalva.
The House passed H.R. 7757, the KIDS Act, by a 267-117 vote, with 47 members not voting. The legislation was considered under the House’s suspension of the rules process, a procedure typically reserved for measures expected to receive broad bipartisan support and requiring a two-thirds majority for passage.
Although the bill cleared the House, opposition included several statistically notable votes from lawmakers who broke with the voting patterns of their own party. Arizona Republicans David Schweikert, Eli Crane, Andy Biggs, and Paul Gosar were among those identified as casting unexpected “no” votes.
Julie Barrett of Conservative Ladies of America argued the legislation extends far beyond online child safety, describing the KIDS Act as "not one bill" but "seven interlocking titles" that together could create a federal framework for age identification, consent management and digital identity verification through future FTC rulemaking.
“What happened Monday night is the next chapter of that story,” Barrett wrote.
FEEDBACK FROM AROUND X:
Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), who voted against the bill, warned it goes far beyond protecting children. He argued the legislation could become “a vehicle for mass surveillance” that threatens privacy, free speech, and parental rights, drawing comparisons to the UK’s Online Safety Act and its age-verification requirements.
Taxpayers Protection Alliance blasted the legislation, saying: “The KIDS Act puts kids last. It expands age verification, creates new privacy risks, burdens innovation, and does little to stop the criminals who actually prey on children.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), pointed to a New York Times investigation arguing that many social media child safety features have failed and that stronger federal protections are needed to hold Big Tech accountable. “The House KIDS Act will not force Big Tech to make their platforms safe by design & should be rejected.”
Former Rep. Justin Amash (I-Michigan) criticized the legislation just before the vote, warning lawmakers against using child safety as justification for expanding government control over online speech and digital identity requirements.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (D) joined a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general urging Congress to reject the House version of the KIDS Act, arguing it would weaken state child safety laws while letting Big Tech off the hook.
Before the KIDS Act, Google Was Already Updating Child Protections
Critics say Washington is trying to mandate parental controls that many tech companies have already implemented. Google already requires parent-managed accounts for children under 13, gives parents extensive supervision tools through Family Link, enforces age-based restrictions across its services, and has recently strengthened its guidance to parents through updated Terms of Service.
Google is rolling out revised Terms of Service which include reminders aimed specifically at parents and guardians. Some child safety measures are already being implemented through platform policies rather than federal legislation.
Anytime I get a “Terms of Service” update from a company in the middle of the night, on a weekend, I know it’ll be worth my time to read it over.
This one did not disappoint.
“These changes won’t affect the way you use our services, but they should help make it easier for you to understand what to expect from Google — and what we expect from you…” reads the email from the tech giant.
Google specifically tells parents and guardians to review the updated terms with their children and decide whether changes should be made to their accounts. The company also reminds parents they are responsible for their child’s activity across Google’s services.
If you don’t agree to the new terms, Google says you should remove your content and stop using its services, including the option to close your Google Account.
If your children use Gmail, YouTube, Google Docs, Classroom, or other Google services, it’s worth taking a few minutes to read through the changes together before they take effect on July 30th.
Google's age-verification process states that IDs are stored securely and not made public, but the company also says it may retain identification or credit card data as necessary to meet legal and regulatory requirements.
You can read my full X thread breaking down the update here.
When Google Showed Up at the Arizona Capitol
Google’s interest in Arizona’s AI legislation caught my attention on February 12th when a Google representative testified before lawmakers in support of HB 2311. The bill established rules for conversational AI services used by minors.
Supporters described HB 2311 as a child safety measure designed to reduce harmful AI interactions with children. Google backed the proposal during committee testimony.
Critics saw something different. Julie Barrett, founder of Conservative Ladies of America, warned the bill could pave the way for mandatory age verification and digital identification for anyone using AI chatbots. Rep. Alex Kolodin (R) echoed concerns that the legislation could expand government and corporate surveillance.
(See my investigation: Weaponizing Kindness: When "Protect the Kids" Laws Expand Arizona's Government Control.)
Request to Speak records reveal just how unusual the coalition behind the bill was. Supporters included Google LLC and its affiliates, the Arizona Technology Council, TechNet and other technology interests. Opponents included the ACLU of Arizona, NOW Arizona, Wego AI and dozens of private citizens concerned about privacy, civil liberties and government overreach.
Then, something changed.
As HB 2311 moved toward final passage, lawmakers began negotiating significant revisions. During Senate debate on June 9th, Sen. Mitzi Epstein (D) acknowledged the political pressure surrounding the bill, telling Sen. David Farnsworth (R), “From what I’ve heard in committee and so on, lobbyists on this one are a strong force.“
Sen. Farnsworth introduced a series of late-session amendments aimed at answering many of the privacy objections. The first package expanded AI disclosure requirements, strengthened suicide prevention provisions, limited how age-verification data could be collected and used, prohibited the sale or transfer of that data, restricted Attorney General rulemaking, and added explicit privacy protections.
Just three days later, Sen. Farnsworth returned with another round of amendments that went even further. The revised language prohibited AI companies from conditioning access on digital ID unless required by federal law, clarified that the bill could not be used to track users’ online activity, and added an explicit prohibition against creating social credit or social scoring systems.
HB 2311 passed the House on June 12th by a 35-20 vote, with Reps. Alex Kolodin and Cody Reim the only Republicans voting no.
One week later, Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) vetoed the legislation. Rather than criticizing it for threatening privacy, Gov. Hobbs argued the opposite stating it would protect AI companies more than children by limiting lawsuits and reducing liability for technology firms.
Jen’s Two Cents.
If you recall, back in early June I exclusively reported that Big Tech’s interest in Goodyear was driving a major zoning overhaul, including proposals to allow Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) beyond industrial districts.
Tonight’s Planning & Zoning Commission meeting will review an updated version of the zoning ordinance after stakeholders weighed in on the proposal. The proposed revisions are part of Goodyear’s first comprehensive zoning code rewrite in more than 25 years and could influence where battery storage, data centers, and other emerging technologies are built in the future.
The question remains: Should agricultural land be opened up for battery storage projects that support Arizona’s growing tech and energy sectors?