LoginWisconsin lawmakers seek ‘bell-to-bell’ cell phone ban and internet regulations for children
Washington, D.C., and 38 states have enacted some form of statewide restriction or requirement for districts to limit student phone use. Of those, 18 have bans for the entire day. (Photo by SDI Productions via Getty Images)
Wisconsin lawmakers are calling for the state to ban cell phones throughout the school day and to implement regulations on social media and other platforms in an effort to protect children from the negative consequences of internet and social media use.
The bills regulating cellphone and internet use are the result of a task force organized by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) last year. The group of lawmakers, which met four times, was tasked with examining the effects of social media on youth development, evaluating the benefits and drawbacks to children having unlimited, unsupervised access to the internet and assessing the risks and dangers of children being online.
Bell-to-bell cell phone ban
Following the lead of several other states, Wisconsin lawmakers are pushing for a “bell-to-bell” cell phone ban in schools, about six months before school districts in Wisconsin are required to implement the instructional cell phone ban in schools recently required by state law.
Washington, D.C., and 38 states have enacted some form of statewide restriction or requirement for districts to limit student phone use. Of those, 18 have bans for the entire day.
AB 948 would require policies banning cell phone use in school to prohibit them throughout the entire school day including during instructional time, recess, the time students travel between classes and the lunch period. This would need to be implemented by July 1, 2027, under the bill.
Rep. Lindee Brill (R-Sheboygan Falls) told lawmakers on the Assembly Education committee that the bill is just one part of a “multifaceted approach” to addressing the question of protecting children online.
“If schools can be a safe zone that this bill helps implement, that is a huge piece,” she said.
Brill said that a student during one of the task force meetings said that he had many experiences on social media and “most of them were bad” and that social media “brings you down.”
Wisconsin recently enacted a statewide cell phone ban, signed into law by Gov. Tony Evers in October. But 2025 Wisconsin Act 42 only requires school districts to implement policies that ban cellphones during instructional times. These policies need to include exceptions for emergencies, for educational purposes and cases involving student health care, individualized education plans (IEPs) or 504 plans (learning environment accommodations).
Even prior to the recent state law, according to a Wisconsin Policy Forum report, most Wisconsin school districts already restricted student cellphone use, though policies and enforcement varied widely across the state.
However, Brill said the state should go further.
“School districts are right now considering adopting these policies independently and there’s a groundswell of parents calling for it,” Brill said.
Rep. Joel Kitchens (R-Sturgeon Bay), who led the first cellphone ban law, noted that he got a lot of pushback when he first proposed the idea because it was a “fairly new concept.” He said he would have liked to pass a bell-to-bell ban to begin with, but he didn’t think there was the political support necessary.
“Since that time, though, this issue has exploded across the country and Wisconsin is now on the weaker end of it,” Kitchens said, adding that New York, a Democratic-led state, and Louisiana, a Republican-led state, have the strictest bans in the country.
AB 948 would also explicitly allow school districts to use pouches or other storage devices for cellphones or ban having cellphones on school premises.
Democratic lawmakers on the education committee questioned the approach as a “one-size-fits-all” solution to the issue of cellphones, as well as the exclusion of the state’s private choice and independent charter schools, which receive taxpayers dollars, from the requirement.
“Why the one-size-fits-all nature of this?” Rep. Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) asked. He noted that there may be students who have a part-time job and need to stay in-touch with their employers during the school day and asked whether lawmakers would be open to allowing exceptions for phones during lunch if a school chooses.
“We did it for 200 years without cellphones before and I think we can do it again,” Kitchens said. “The more you understand the issue the more clear it becomes. You have to have a strict policy.”
Rep. Joe Sheehan (D-Sheboygan) said that the superintendent of the school district in the area he represents in the Assembly did not want the broader ban on cellphones. He also asked about the exclusion of the state’s voucher schools. He said if the schools don’t want to follow the regulations placed on schools getting taxpayer funding then “don’t take the money.”
Brill said that parents are sending their children to voucher schools so they can get the education that fits their children best and that she doesn’t want there to be “punitive damages on private schools because they’re getting tax dollars when, in reality, it’s that child who’s getting the education.”
Kitchens said a bill that only includes public schools is all they can get done “politically” right now.
No one else testified on the bill.
Regulations on content, social media access
The Assembly Children and Families committee took up a set of bills that would regulate social media companies and platforms.
AB 961 would require distributors of media, including print publications and digital platforms, to use prominent “explicit content” warning labels.
Rep. Joy Goeben (R-Hobart) said the bill would establish a “common-sense framework ensuring that material intended strictly for adults … is clearly identified before it is accessed.”
The bill defines “explicit content” as material “intended for an adult audience” that “lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” and that “depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way.”
Under the bill, the warning label would need to be on the front cover or first page or on the packaging for print publications and for digital platforms, the label would need to appear for at least 10 seconds or until a user acknowledges the warning.
The warning label would need to be similar to: “WARNING: This material contains explicit content that may be harmful or offensive. Viewer discretion is advised. Not intended for minors.”
“Ultimately, this bill is about consumer transparency, helps protect minors by ensuring explicit material clearly is labeled and responsibly presented,” Goeben said.
Rep. Jill Billings (D-La Crosse) asked Goeben whether she would be open to an amendment to remove printed materials from the bill, citing concerns from book sellers.
“If this got this signed, you betcha I would, but realistically most things that are sold, aren’t they sold, like, in a wrapper?” Goeben asked, adding that she didn’t think it would be fair to social media or internet stakeholders to exclude printed materials.
“I think we really need to think about applying equally to all the people who create disturbing content,” Goeben said.
“Maybe take print media out of it because again… this isn’t like the emerging technology where parents are struggling with trying to address what their kids are seeing and how they’re putting parental controls on it. Print media is a bit of a different animal,” Billings said.
AB 962 would require app developers and app stores to verify the age of users and, if they identified a minor’s account, to get parental consent before child users are able to download or purchase apps or make in-store purchases. Accounts belonging to a minor would have to be affiliated with an account owned by a parent.
Goeben said the bill would give parents tools they have been asking for.
“Parents should never discover after the fact that an app that their child has used daily has become more invasive or more dangerous,” Goeben said. “This proposal is narrowly and carefully tailored… it does not ban apps or censor content or interfere with innovation… What it does do is establish clear and uniform rules so families are no longer forced to navigate a confusing patchwork of opaque policies… written by corporations.”
The bill would also prohibit apps and app stores from enforcing a contract or terms of service against a minor unless there is parental consent. And it bars knowingly misrepresenting any information in a parental consent disclosure and sharing or disclosing any personal information collected when conducting age verification.
The bill includes a provision to allow a minor or parent of a minor harmed by a violation to bring civil action against an app store provider or developer. They could be awarded actual damages or $1,000 for each violation, whichever amount is greater, and punitive damages if the violation was egregious, as well as court costs and reasonable attorney fees.
AB 963 would impose a number of requirements related to underage users on social media platforms that bring in more than $1 billion in revenue per year. Social media platforms would need to estimate the age of users and whether they are minors.
The requirements include setting the default privacy settings at the most private; not allowing for “addictive features” including infinite scrolling, a profile-based feed, push notifications, autoplay and displaying likes; and preventing profile-based, paid commercial advertising in a minor’s feed.
Platforms would also need to terminate an account if they have reason to believe the user is a minor without parental consent. If a parent requests the termination of a child’s account, it must be done within 14 days, and the means to terminate an account must be clear, simple, and easy to locate.
The bill includes a provision to allow a private civil action by a parent or child aggrieved by a negligent, reckless or knowing violation for declaratory or injunctive relief and damages. If the violation was reckless or knowing, the parent or minor would be entitled to $10,000 or actual damages per violation.
Brittney and Luke Bird, the parents of Bradyn Bohn, the 15-year-old who killed himself after falling victim to sextortion, testified in favor of the bill. They have become prominent advocates for online safety and child protection in the wake of the death of their son.
Luke Bird told lawmakers on the committee that the bills are “meaningful steps towards preventing further tragedies.”
“Over the last 11 months, we’ve learned firsthand how inadequate current safeguards are when it comes to internet use. The dangers are real, they’re immediate, and they’re widespread and growing,” he said. “There’s an active case against Meta involving sextortion scams. Snapchat is facing cases tied to drug distribution. TikTok has been tied to dangerous online challenges…. As parents and as citizens we’re expected to trust that our children can safely navigate these digital spaces. We believe safeguards, accountability and stronger protections must be put in place. That begins with you, in here.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
