Ohio Senate Financial Institutions, Insurance and Technology Committee - 4-14-2026

Here.

Here.

Senator Liston.

Senator Manning checked in.

Well, thank you very much, Chair Wilson, Vice Chair Lang, Ranking Member Craig, Nate, and members of the Financial Institutions Insurance and Technology Committee. Thank you for affording me and my joint sponsor, Senator Katrona, the opportunity to provide sponsored testimony on Senate Bill 239. It is a companion bill to House Bill 280. This important legislation seeks to standardize employer contribution rates for the first responders who pay into the Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund and provides mechanisms to ensure the long-term stability of the pension. The General Assembly has legal obligation to ensure that each pension fund is properly funded. In the case of the Ohio Police and Fire, it is to ensure that first responders can retire without fear. OPNF must make changes to ensure that long-term stability of the fund. As of January 1, 2025, the fund had an amortization period of 29.88 years, dangerously close to the statutory cap of 30 years. Their assumed rate of return dropped from 8% in 2022 to 7.5% as of September 30, 2025. In the past eight years, retired police and firefighters have experienced $3.2 billion in benefit cuts, while employee contribution rates have increased by 2.25%. As per our statutory requirement, the legislature must implement sound fiscal solutions in order to address these issues before they become an emergency. Let's discuss how the first provision of Senate Bill 239 is common sense. It raises the employer contribution rate for police officers to 24% from 19.5% over the course of five years. This would mirror the 24% employer contribution rate already in code for firefighters. In 2026, it is estimated that the fund would see an additional 8% from these increased employer contributions, with an additional $76 million by the year 2030. Making this change would create a fair employer contribution rate for both police and firefighters, while also increasing the revenue stream for the pension. Senate Bill 239 also allows the fund flexibility to address funding concerns as they rise. Should the fund exceed the statutory 30-year amortization cap, it would allow for the actuarially determined employer contribution ADEC rate Actuarial determined funding was used to fund until 1986 and was suggested approach by Americans for Prosperity in a previous General Assembly The bill creates several limitations on how employer contributions can be raised. First, they must raise both police and fire employer contribution rates for a period of not exceeding three years and not greater than 1.5%. Additionally, the actuary may not change the contribution rates by more than 0.5% in a three-year time frame. It is our belief that both these changes are fiscally responsible and help improve the overall health of OPNF. I will now hand over to my joint sponsor, Senator Catrona, who will continue explaining the need for the legislation.

Well, thank you for your testimony. I appreciate that. All the questions from committee. Senator Lange.

Through the chair to Senator Lang. I think I wanted to start by opening up the framework and the dialogue of the discussion of the police and fire pension fund. This is the fund that is right now the closest to potentially going into the 30 time frame and if it does we got a problem I mean if we have a downturn like we had in 2008 this would easily go past the 30 time frame and we would have severe problems with where we are I'm open to other options. I think from a funding standpoint, though, this is fair because fire has been paying the 24 percent. I believe that if you're going to have a police and fire pension fund, the police should also have the same percentages going in coming from the municipalities who are paying it. After all, they're the ones that are hiring police and fire. I think that maybe there should be some discussion, and this committee can do it, about structurally, is it fair that one municipality can maybe use something that another municipality won't in order to try to be more competitive at bringing in their police and or fire to their area versus another by using the pension funds? And I think that's probably where we need to have some further discussion. I think, though, if we're taking a look at trying to make sure that we fully fund it and soundly fund it, I think we need to have a start. And I think the start would be to try to make sure that the employer contribution is the same for both police and fire. But not only that, I think we're doing this in such a way that it is phased in, and I mind you, this is 2026, but this would be phased in over approximately five years. So this would give time for the municipalities to adjust. They could then take a look at their existing, how they're handling their benefits for their employees, specifically in police and fire, and make adjustments there. And I think that's where we need to start from a standpoint of being able to pay not only the existing employees who are there, but making sure that these retirees are fully funded and will continue to be funded in the future.

Other questions? Well, thank you very much again for your testimony. And this concludes the first hearing on Senate Bill 239. Thank you. Chair, I'll call up House Bill 650 for its first hearing. the committee will hear sponsor testimony from Representative Heidi Workman. Welcome to committee, and please proceed when you're ready.

Well, thank you very much for your testimony. And are there questions for the committee? Senator Blessey.

May I respond, Chair?

Thank you. Senator, I appreciate your concern, and I also see that there's an urgency here that should not be delayed in any way. But it's important, I think, that the legislature come together to study these issues. It's important that we study them so we can understand them. And we can't understand these issues in a vacuum. Even the leaders and the developers of these technologies are saying they don't fully understand these issues. They don't fully understand where the technology will go tomorrow. So it is important that we do not operate in a vacuum and that we use this opportunity to collaborate and innovate together.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So can you explain to me why a standing committee is insufficient to study this versus a study commission?

Good question. I ask this as well, and it would be appropriate in my opinion. However, that's above my pay grade. So we'll see how it is determined as we move forward. Appreciate that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative, I'm first going to say, if this is a study commission, then how come we don't have four Democrats and four Republicans? Why is it six to two? If we actually want to get full input on everything, again, if it's not a standing committee or a special committee of the legislature, then if we're studying it, why can't we have equal representation? And in the same note, I'm seeing that they have to give a report by the end of this year. Well, knowing the legislative process, this isn't going to get passed today, which means it's going to be sometime in May or June, and then we're all going to be out campaigning, and then we'll come back in December to screw the state as many ways as possible and laying duck session. When is this committee going to actually meet and do anything and give a report in that sort of small timeline? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Appreciate that question, Senator. I share the same concerns. the time frame on this study commission is very rapid. But in voicing those concerns, as we have discussed here briefly, the urgency is critical. So we have to move very quickly. We intend that the commission will come together very quickly, if you are so willing, and start the process right away and work diligently through the summer recess and return with a full report, hopefully before we break in the lame duck session. If anything changes on that front, we'll have to, you know, address it here with this committee and see what else we might be able to do to address those concerns To your second point you asking about an equal representation on the commission So of course this is something that was also expressed in the House committee and through the House floor amendment process We've revised how the members have been appointed by our leadership in both the House and the Senate and have come to an agreement that it is a balanced representation of the majority and the minority in the House.

Good afternoon. Chairman Wilson, Vice Chair Lang, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Chris Rinkus, and I'm Meta's Public Policy Director for the state of Ohio. I've spent my career focused on youth policy issues, including four years as a senior policy advisor in the first Trump administration. I'm also the proud father of two daughters. I have a keen appreciation for the need to protect young people online, and I applaud the work of this committee towards that end. Today I am testifying in support of Senate Bill 167, the App Store Accountability Act. It would require an App Store to verify age and obtain parental consent before a teen can download an app. The App Store would then securely share that age and consent signal with an app, like Instagram, so that younger users are automatically placed in an age-appropriate experience upon download. This approach is built on a simple but a powerful idea. Protecting teens online is a shared responsibility and everyone must do their part. The App Store Accountability Act is practical, effective, and most importantly, what parents want. A recent poll found that 80% of Ohio parents support legislation that would require parental approval through an App Store in order for teens to download apps. Other states have recognized the growing support among parents and the public for this proposal. The App Store Accountability Act has now been signed into law in four states, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas and Utah. It has been introduced in more than half of all states. It was recently advanced in Congress by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. And here's how it works. When a parent sets up a teen's phone, an App Store verifies the user's age. From that point forward, any app download requires parental approval. The app simply does not download unless the parent says yes This gives parents the ultimate veto over which apps their teens can access putting parents firmly in control. This single checkpoint at the app store level offers several important advantages. Apple and Google, which operate the two largest app stores, already collect age information when a parent buys and sets up a teen's phone. Apple and Google also already have systems in place to obtain parental approval before teens can purchase paid apps. An app store could easily use this infrastructure to cover all app downloads, rather than just the apps that cost money. Currently, both companies earn a commission on paid app downloads and in-app purchases. Under this bill, because age would only be verified once over trusted infrastructure, Senate Bill 167 minimizes data exposure. No sensitive personal information is ever shared with any app developer. An app store would only be required to share secure and anonymous age range and consent signals with parent-approved apps. This avoids the risk of identity theft often associated with uploading personal information to multiple services across the Internet. Importantly, this proposal does not offload responsibility for teen online safety exclusively to an app store. It remains true to its core principle. Protecting teens online is a shared responsibility and everyone must do their part. To that end, apps are required to create age-appropriate experiences tailored to different age groups. Meta is fully prepared to comply with Senate Bill 167's requirement that apps provide an age-appropriate experience for teens. Using a reliable age signal provided by an app store, Meta can ensure teens are consistently placed into our teen accounts, which offer higher protection and stricter safety settings across all of our platforms. The App Store Accountability Act is parent-empowering, popular, and effective. It's a good proposal on its merits. But I also want to explain why it is significantly better than the alternative before this committee. I understand that the committee is considering Senate Bill 175. Senate Bill 175 is virtually identical to legislation signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom in the state of California in 2025. We believe that Senate Bill 175 is not the right bill for Ohio for a few reasons. First, Senate Bill 175 does not empower parents to nearly the same extent as the App Store Accountability Act. Senate Bill 175 does not require parental approval for teens to download apps. Therefore, it is missing the number one thing that parents consistently say that they want. A bill that makes parental consent optional rather than mandatory simply cannot deliver the level of protection that Ohio parents expect. Second, Senate Bill 175 shifts the burden of age verification from app stores to individual apps. There are millions of apps, with new ones added every single day. Many apps lack the infrastructure to securely collect and store users' private information. It's been estimated that teens use an average of 40 different apps per week. If each Each of those apps were independently responsible for collecting age and consent information, parents would be sharing sensitive personal data about themselves and their children with dozens and dozens of different platforms. This greatly increases the risk that their data could be exposed to potential bad actors. These privacy risks are not hypothetical. A popular communications app recently implemented its own age verification program and later disclosed that more than 70,000 government IDs had been compromised. Given the global nature of the mobile internet, some of this sensitive data would inevitably be collected and stored by apps operated outside the United States, further compounding the risks. That's not good for privacy, and it isn't good for parents. We're here today because we all care about protecting teens and want to make sure they're safe online. We want to ensure parents have the final say when determining which apps a teen can access. We want teens' data kept safe and secure. And we want them to have fun, engaging, and age-appropriate experiences online. I know that's what I want for my kids. There's only one proposal before this committee that accomplishes all of those goals. It is Senate Bill 167, the App Store Accountability Act. We respectfully ask that the committee pass Senate Bill 167 without delay and help empower parents and keep teens safe across the great state of Ohio. Thank you and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Isn't it correct you said Texas passed this law, but didn't a federal court in Texas already enjoin this law, basically saying it's unconstitutional? Through the chair?

It hasn't been enjoined in, sorry, Mr. Chair, a follow-up question? Yes. It's been enjoined in more than one federal court, hasn't it?

Fellow members, Chair. Thank you. So, and so, and no offense to your testimony here, but, you know, teenagers have constitutional rights of free speech as well. And by not allowing them to download apps, just because their parent doesn't want them to, as I pointed out in the first hearing of this committee, if I, if I'm a teenage female and want to download a menstruation app and my parents are morally against them, I still have that right as an individual to download that app, regardless of whether my parents want me to do that or not. This bill prohibits that so in essence it prohibits speech which is unconstitutional which is what the Texas court found that your bill this bill is unconstitutional for federally hurting speech and likewise and other things of the First Amendment So what are your answers to those?

Senator Patton.

Yes. Yes, Senator.

Senator, under the current version of 175, we believe that that parental consent would merely be optional.

Through the chair? Yes. Senator, the way that we understand the bill that passed in California, which is virtually identical to the bill that you've substituted in 175, that parental consent is optional. That was a driving factor in how the bill passed in California. When the bill was first introduced in the first chamber in California, it had an express requirement for parental consent. That came out before the bill was passed and signed into law by Governor Newsom. The version that you have introduced, we do not see is materially different from that bill that's law in California.

I can't speak to the group that you mentioned. They're not here today. What I can tell you is that META supports 167 as good policy, popular policy, supported by parents across the state.

Through the chair. Yes. Yes, sir. I think that it's accurate to say that any determined young person can potentially evade even the best online safety policy. That's a reality when we're dealing with this topic. I think the App Store Accountability Act offers some of the most robust protections, both for young people and empowering tools for parents. The potential risks of someone evading that exist, but I think are minimized under this proposal, and minimized in a way that makes it ultimately more effective and more parent-empowering than any of the alternatives.

Through the chair. Which was the last? The state of Alabama.

This session. This session.

What's the significant difference? Through the chair? None that I'm aware of. No further questions.

Thank you.

Chair Wilson, Vice Chair Lang, members of the committee. My name is Chris Grimm, and I thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Developers Alliance in opposition to Senate Bill 167. The Developers Alliance is an advocacy organization representing app publishers and developers, including many small app publishers based here in Ohio. The Developers Alliance believes that protecting children is the responsibility of every developer, device manufacturer, operating system, and platform, and that parents should be empowered and supported with the tools they need to make decisions about their children's online experiences. Protecting children requires coordination and shared responsibility across the app ecosystem. Laws that govern how kids download and interact with content should focus on protecting users and not benefit one platform over another. While Senate Bill 167 aims to protect kids, it fails to do so, while imposing broad mandates that are likely unconstitutional and would hurt developers who create safe, educational and age-appropriate content for kids. For example, Juranung is a Cincinnati-based app that helps users learn a new language by playing fun and interactive space games. It's definitely an app that is likely to be accessed by children. Senate Bill 167 would require a minor to receive parental consent before downloading Dernung That means a high school student who struggling in their German class whose parents may not be paying close attention or are just overwhelmed with notifications won't be able to download a perfectly safe, age-appropriate app. Also, Senate Bill 167 defines a covered application as those likely to be accessed by children. It is entirely possible that apps like Jernung will face these barriers, while more concerning adult-themed apps will not, because they are not likely to be accessed by children. To be clear, the Developers Alliance supports strong parental controls. As a parent of two young kids, I'm very well aware of the features that leading device manufacturers and operating systems offer parents to control what their kids can do on their apps, based on factors like an app's age rating and screen time limits. Empowering parents is a good solution. If this bill required app stores, operating systems, and devices to offer those features to parents, we'd be the first to support it. Instead, Senate Bill 167 creates a blanket mandate that will hurt developers of safe, age-appropriate, and educational apps. Its approach is like requiring the mall to card every shopper when they enter because there's a wine store in the mall, and requiring parental consent for every toy that's bought in a toy store. This approach likely also doesn't pass constitutional muster. It isn't the least restrictive means of protecting kids and would infringe on the constitutional rights of app developers who create age-appropriate apps, as well as the First Amendment rights of kids who want to access that content. A similar law, as was mentioned, passed in Texas, has met a preliminary injunction because it likely violates the First Amendment. We thank the committee for its consideration on this important issue. The Developers Alliance respectfully requests that the committee reject Senate Bill 167. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Chairman Wilson, Vice Chairman Lang, Ranking Member Herschel Craig, and members of the Senate Financial Institutions Insurance and Technology Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of Senate Bill 167. My name is Sean Parker and I serve as the National President of the Republican Catholic Coalition. RCC was founded to defend the family, promote Catholic principles and public policy, and and serve as a bridge between Catholic voters and the elected officials who represent them. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms, parents have the first responsibility for the education of their children. Today I speak for parents who want a simple, practical tool to help them exercise that responsibility and protect their children online. The need for this kind of protection is real. Parents across Ohio tell us they feel outpaced by technology and uncertain about what their children are accessing. U.S. Surgeon General has warned there is a meaningful risk of harm to youth, mental health, and social media use, and we cannot conclude that these platforms are sufficiently safe for children and adolescents without robust parental oversight. Last year, Ohio Women Lead Rights surveyed parents across the state and found that 80 support requiring app stores to obtain parental approval before children can download apps. That support is bipartisan and it is broad. It reflects something Ohio parents have been saying clearly and consistently. They want to be in charge of what their children access online, and they want to... Sorry about that. Our organization urges the committee to report Senate Bill 167 favorably. Like Representative Melanie Miller's companion measure, House Bill 226, this is a common-sense constitutional step to strengthen parental authority and protect children's well-being. Thank you for your consideration of my testimony today, and I wish each of you a happy Easter season. I welcome any questions.

Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, sir, Mr. Parker. As my 24th year here, I wasn't aware of your organization. Can you tell me a little bit more about the Republican Catholic Coalition as a Roman Catholic? Yeah, absolutely. I'm surprised I've never heard of you before. Through the chair?

Follow-up, sir. Follow-up. And when did your organization come into existence?

Follow-up, sir. Follow-up. If I were to tell you, as I talked to the previous witness, that the coalition that is trying to provide this Defensive Children's Act and people like that. Pornhub has another name that they go by that says the word constitutional in it, so it sounds very American. Would you, if you knew that under 167 with just two keystrokes, someone can bypass all you're attempting to do in 167 and get anywhere, that is why publications will have pronounced the fact that Pornhub and Meta are in favor of this bill and put it on everybody else, whereas the other bill that's being considered puts it everybody. What would your organization think about protecting 80% of the folks, which by the way, is a grandfather of 10 young people. So I'm surprised it was only 80% of the families that were interviewed said that, but the other 20 probably misunderstood the question. But having said that, 167 leaves open Meta and Pornhub, and it doesn't go after them, whereas 175 goes after everybody. So now knowing that simple fact right off the top of your head, do you think you would change your mind then, but instead of trying to encompass this group, encompass everybody? Because that's the difference between the bill.

Mr. Chairman, please. And just as a conclusion, I just wasn't sure that you realized that there was, you know, there's applications that will not fall under 167 that children can access very easily and very simply. It was admitted that they can do it. They said, and kids, young kids could probably do just about everything. What we're trying to do is block as many of the doors as we can. Right.

I'll defer to you.

Good afternoon. Chairman Wilson, Vice Chair Lange, Ranking Member Craig, members of the committee, thank you so much for the opportunity to testify on substitute Senate Bill 175 today. My name is Kate Charlotte. I lead Google's public policy teams for privacy, cybersecurity, and youth safety. At Google, our work is guided by a longstanding commitment to protecting young users. We operate on the principle of creating age-appropriate experiences for everyone. And to do that, we are constantly investing in protections for our youth. I won't go through all of them. It includes not delivering personalized ads to under-18s, content protections on YouTube and Google Play, enabling strict settings on Google Search to protect our children. I am here today to support the substitute version of Senate Bill 175 on behalf of Google. We believe this remains the smartest, safest, most effective way to protect Ohio's children in a digital world. At its core, this legislation is about that simple, powerful idea of working together as a team. We have to empower parents, but we also cannot put the burden on their shoulders. It takes everybody, whether that's the operating system, the app store developer, the app developer themselves, to work together to support families and get this right. This bill creates a critical privacy-first layer of protection through a system-wide age signal. So let me explain what that means from the perspective of somebody who is experiencing the technologies, like the families that this bill protects. So when a device is first being set up the operating system requires the parent to input their child age So this creates a secure digital age signal and if a parent chooses that signal is then shared to apps through an app store including ours telling those apps whether a user is a child or a younger teen or an older teen The app then has the age information that it needs to put in place a safer experience for kids. And because this happens at the system level, the operating system level, it makes sure that the protections are on by default across all the apps that a child downloads. So rather than forcing parents to hunt around to different settings and do the supervision controls of every single individual app, delivers this information seamlessly. And all this is done critically without the privacy-invasive requirements that we see in some of the other bills to require hard ID verification for everyone just to access basic services or child's birth certificate, specific identity, other kinds of privacy-invasive requirements. The sub bill is also designed to empower parents, not replace them, so it allows them to choose what apps get that sensitive child age information. And the legislation also places a clear responsibility on the developers because they know the risks of their apps best. So when a developer receives an age signal that says, hey, this user is a minor, they are required to treat it as the primary indicator of age and provide the safe experience accordingly. And as I mentioned, from a privacy perspective, the bill prohibits developers from requesting more personal information than is needed to get the job done here. I think it goes without saying that a bill that is tied up in the courts does not help kids. So I really appreciate that the bill's authors have worked to avoid some of the constitutionality concerns that have led to legislation like SB 167 to be enjoined in court. This bill is comprehensive by involving the operating system. It creates a more seamless way for families and businesses, and it respects the privacy of Ohioans while creating meaningful common sense guardrails. So we're pleased to support the bill. We think it's the right way forward for Ohio's families. We're proud to support it, and I'm very happy to take your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I'm going to ask you basically the same question I asked the person from Meta. If I am a 16-year-old teenage girl and I want to download a menstruation app, will this prevent me from doing that even though my parents don't want me to have that app? So I think the important thing for this bill is that it does not put any impediments in place

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair. I so again again I asked I I been consistent on my questions for both bills and on all the hearings I been to has a has a I guess a bill similar to the substitute bill that we have before us today passed anywhere I mean is a California bill similar And if it passed has it been enjoined by any court like the other bill had that passed Texas already been enjoined

Other states? It's being considered in multiple places.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Will this cost, if this 175 passes, will this cost Google money? Will the idea that they have to put all these things in place, will that actually cost the company money?

to let you know that this is not aimed at trying to protect your organization, your company, from avoiding any decisions. Actually, there's going to be quite a bit of work and expense that's going to go into enforcing this program. So I appreciate your testimony today.

Yes, if I may.

Chair Wilson, members of the committee, once again, Chris Grimm on behalf of the Developers Alliance, testifying in support of Senate Bill 175. The Developers Alliance approaches this issue from the perspective of the majority of apps that create safe, age-appropriate experiences for users of all ages, and trying to balance those concerns with the very important need of protecting kids online. I want to address some of the opposition to this bill that we've heard so far. First, we disagree with the assessment that this bill shifts responsibility from app stores to apps, as you heard from the prior witness. This shares responsibility between operating system stores and apps. But second, more importantly, apps should be responsible for the experiences users have on their apps. We surveyed last year Ohio-based app developers. 77% said they have no need to know a user's age, and 95% said that apps that are geared towards adults or provide different experiences based on users' age should be responsible for ensuring their users have appropriate experience on their apps. Again, most apps don't need this information. They are providing an E for everyone type experience. Those that are not providing that type of experience should be responsible for what happens on their apps. Senate Bill 175, as substituted, seeks to strike a balance between constitutional protections, shared responsibility, and protecting kids online. We respectfully request the committee support Senate Bill 175. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Chairman Wilson, Vice Chair Lang, and Ranking Member Craig, esteemed members of the Senate Financial Institutions Insurance and Technology Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition to Senate Bill 175. My name is Ryan Foles, and I represent the Center for Christian Virtue. Let me begin by acknowledging a point of agreement. The status quo is not working, and we all acknowledge that minors are being harmed. Action by this body is justified, as the state maintains compelling interest in the protection of minors. However, a substitute to Senate Bill 175 does not solve this problem. In fact, it risks reinforcing many of the same failures that have allowed big tech to operate without meaningful accountability. At its core, Senate Bill 175 relies on an age signal framework that places the burden on operating system providers to collect age information and pass along broad age data to app developers. While this may sound reasonable, in practice it creates a system where children can still misrepresent their age and gain access to inappropriate content. Under this bill, miners could access and use apps such as gambling platforms, need to find tools dating and social apps filled with predators and explicit chatbots without any meaningful verified parental approval requirement in place. Additionally, this bill makes several mistakes that the previous bill made. The bill's reliance on digital signals, which developers can override based on internal data, create loopholes that bypass consistent parental approval and leave families without any right of action for harm. Furthermore, by granting broad liability protections of data to large tech companies that demonstrate a good faith effort to an already less than performance age verification model, this legislation effectively shields platforms while shifting the burden of risk onto children and parents. Contrast this with the App Store Accountability Act, which would require verifiable parental consent before minors can download apps, ensure parents receive clear disclosures about content and data collection, and give families meaningful control over their child's digital environment using already existing digital infrastructure. That is the standard that Ohio families deserve, and Senate Bill 175 falls short of that standard. SB 175 creates the appearance of action without delivering real protections and in doing so risk entrenching the very system we are trying to fix For these reasons CCV respectfully urges this committee to oppose Senate Bill 175 and instead advance policies that truly empower parents and protect Ohio children This can be done by passing Senate Bill 167, known as App Store Accountability Act, which is already passed in four other states. Thank you for your time and consideration. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So is it your testimony that if someone's not 18, they have no right of free speech or First Amendment rights because they're not smart enough or old enough to download what apps they want to download?

That didn't answer my question.

Excellent. Thank you. Chair Wilson, Vice Chair Lang, Ranking Member Craig, and members of the Senate Financial Institutions Insurance Technology Committee, Thank you for the opportunity to testify as an interested party on Senate Bill 175. Youth suicide is a critical issue in the state of Ohio. Approximately one in five youth experience a mental health condition each year, and this significantly affects their ability to learn, succeed in school, build healthy relationships, and become productive citizens in the state of Ohio. I've talked to many parents about bullying and cyberbullying and sextortion With all of these kids, you know, with so many of these kids experiencing higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide. A 2025 report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reports up to 95% of youth ages 13 to 17 report using a social media platform, with more than a third saying they use social media almost constantly. Overall, frequent social media users were more likely to report having seriously considered attempting suicide and having made a suicide plan. In the state of Ohio, we lose a child to suicide every 34 hours in this state. And meeting with and working with families who have lost a child to suicide is one of the most heartbreaking and helpless experiences one can have. Working within a family's grief is an experience that I wish no family had to endure. but I wanted to give everyone on this committee a look inside one family's grief. So I will share a text from a mom that was texted to me just a couple days ago who lost her son in early March She says I picked my son ashes up today I think it felt better having him home I still keep expecting this as a mistake or a nightmare. Not my kid, not my family. This just cannot be real. I'm finding some people are afraid to talk to me while others are too overly intimate with personal details of our life and it's all very weird. I'm still mostly cycling through a lot of emotions. It was so hard to say goodbye to March as it was the last month I had my baby boy with me. Acknowledging a new way of life without him is very hard. More than two years ago I stood with Governor DeWine and then Lieutenant Governor Husted about this very issue and saw that get struck down by the courts, passed in the budget bill. I stood with Senator Reynolds and Representative Miller on Senate Bill 167. And I testified here as a proponent of 167. But since who have read the court case that you've spoken about, Senator DeMora, but since the time that I testified on October 14th, 128 kids have died by suicide in the state of Ohio. Every 34 hours, it's been 26 weeks, that's 128 kids. I stand before you today as an interested party for Senate Bill 175, but also as an interested party for Senate Bill 167 as well. I'm not an attorney. I'm just some dumb guy who likes to coach baseball and try to help people through the worst times of their lives. I just want something that will make it through the courts. It's not a criticism. This is not a criticism of anyone that something hasn't been passed yet. I know that you all want to get this right, and you want to have it holed up in court. We do need to help parents better understand their social media, their child social media usage and be able to address mental health issues, which is what I hope either bill would do.

The governor is a huge proponent, obviously, of getting something done quickly. At the State of the State, while he was extolling the virtues of taking cell phones away from children in public schools, he said now we see kids in cafeterias talking to each other. We see kids at recess throwing the ball around or skipping rope or just talking to each other. And he said that in a very positive way, but then he followed up with, but now you have to do something about these cell phones and the home you sew. And I, too, have all the respect in the world for Senator Reynolds and the folks that support. it's hard to get the perfect bill but the idea of the number of suicides that occur in Ohio from these children makes us work doubly hard. We have to work doubly hard to get something done right away. So I do appreciate you taking the time today and your testimony and you're not just some dumb guy. Thank you chairman.

Chairman Wilson, I move that the committee favorably report substitute Senate Bill 162 to the Committee on Rules and Reference.

Vice Chair Lang. Yes.

Senator Blessing. Yes.

Senator Liston. Yes.

There being sufficient votes, substitute Senate Bill 162 as favorably reported to the Committee on Rules and Reference, and this concludes the fourth hearing on Senate Bill 162. Is there any other or further business to be brought before the committee?

Thank you. I appreciate you saying it. Yes, we'll hold the roll open.

We'll hold the roll open for one hour for those that have checked in and didn't get to vote. Thank you for reminding me of that. Any other further business to be brought before the committee? Seeing none, the Financial Institutions Insurance and Technology Committee stands adjourned.