R E G U L A R A R T I C L E

Adolescents and Social Media:

Privacy, Brain Development,
and the Law
Caitlin R. Costello, MD, Dale E. McNiel, PhD, and Renée L. Binder, MD

Adolescents under the age of 18 are not recognized in the law as adults, nor do they have the fully developed
capacity of adults. Yet teens regularly enter into contractual arrangements with operators of websites to send and
post information about themselves. Their level of development limits their capacity to understand the implications
of online communications, yet the risks are real to adolescents’ privacy and reputations. This article explores an
apparent contradiction in the law: that in areas other than online communications, U.S. legal systems seek to
protect minors from the limitations of youth. The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act provides some
protection to the privacy of young people, but applies only to children under age 13, leaving minors of ages 13 to
17 with little legal protection in their online activities. In this article, we discuss several strategies to mitigate the
risks of adolescent online activity.

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 44:313–21, 2016

Adolescents are able and are legally allowed to send We wanted to integrate for the reader the available
information about themselves and communicate via information on the legal status, both legislative and ju-
social media and online and mobile sites, without dicial, and implications of adolescents’ online activity
fully understanding the implications. An oft-cited and how that information relates to current knowledge
example is the teenage girl who “sexts” an explicit of brain development. We review privacy risks associ-
image to her boyfriend, only to have the image shared ated with teenagers’ online activities, including social
with others in ways she never intended.1 Such risks of media participation, and how Internet use by teenagers
online communications are real, particularly to the has been addressed legislatively and judicially. In addi-
privacy interests of adolescents. tion, we contrast the ease with which adolescents can
Although adolescents under the age of 18 are neither legally enter into online contracts that waive their pri-
recognized in the law as adults, nor understood in psy- vacy rights; commercial contracts that are void or void-
chiatry to have the fully developed capacity of adults, able due to adolescents’ minority legal status; and many
many easily enter into online contracts for the use of other areas, including criminal activity and penal re-
social media. The Children’s Online Privacy Protection sponsibility, in which the law acts to shield juveniles
Act (COPPA) has provided protection to the privacy from the consequences of their developmental immatu-
interests of children, but it applies to children under the rity. We also discuss strategies to limit the potential
age of 13.2 As is discussed below, minors between the harm, resulting from adolescents’ online activity, to
ages of 13 and 17 have little legal protection from the their privacy, safety, and well-being. Such strategies in-
hazards of communicating online. clude legislatively mandated technological fixes, paren-
tal monitoring, education, and the potential role of psy-
Dr. Costello is Assistant Clinical Professor, Division of Child and chiatrists in these endeavors.
Adolescent Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Dr. McNiel is Pro-
fessor of Clinical Psychology, and Dr. Binder is Professor of Psychiatry,
University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. Address Teen Social Media Use and Privacy
correspondence to: Caitlin R. Costello, MD, Assistant Clinical
Professor, Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Depart- The American Academy of Pediatrics defines a
ment of Psychiatry, University of California San Francisco, 401 Par-
nassus Avenue, Box CAS-0984, San Francisco, CA 94143. E-mail: social media site as “any Web site that allows social
[email protected]. interaction,” examples of which include social net-
Disclosures of financial or other potential conflicts of interest: None. working sites, gaming sites and virtual worlds, video

Volume 44, Number 3, 2016 313

 Adolescents and Social Media

sites, and blogs (Ref. 3, p 800). Social media sites propriate for his age; and 39 percent admitted that
may target demographic groups ranging from prepu- they had lied about their age to access a website or
bescent children (e.g., Disney’s Club Penguin) to obtain an online account. The latter finding is rele-
adult professionals (e.g., LinkedIn). Sites that cater vant to this discussion. Exploration of how old a
to general audiences (such as Facebook, Twitter, and person must be to use social media sites reveals that
Instagram) are frequently used by adolescents for there is little oversight, as will be discussed below.
communication, education, and entertainment. Rec-
ognized risks of social media activity include cyber- Teen Social Media Use and Contracts
bullying, online harassment, adolescent relationship Juveniles’ legal ability to access online programs
abuse, so-called “Facebook depression,” and the in- and services is based in contract law. Increasing at-
herent risks that come with “sexting” and other types tention in the courts is resulting in judicial decisions
of disclosure of private information, including expo- on the question of whether a juvenile can legally con-
sure to online sexual solicitation and predation, as sent to online terms of service such as those for social
well as criminal implications of possessing or distrib- media sites that address privacy and security. The last
uting sexually explicit images of underage individu- decade has seen litigation about whether an adult
als.1,3,4 Some college admissions officers use Google who clicks a box on a website or browses through a
and Facebook in their review of applicants, and the website has consented to its terms of service. Courts
information they find can negatively affect the appli- have generally agreed that in such circumstances, a
cant’s chances of admission.5 Poorly considered so- valid contract is created, binding the user to the web-
cial media postings can cost people their jobs and site’s terms of service. In a 2009 case from the Eastern
reputations.6 District of Missouri, for example, the court recog-
Despite these dangers, teens have frequently nized that the legal effect of such online agreements is
shared their personal information via social media. an emerging area of the law and that courts, which
According to a 2012 Pew Research Center survey of have ruled on such matters, have applied traditional
802 teens, 81 percent of online teens used a social principles of contract law.8 Generally, the question is
networking site such as Facebook, and 24 percent whether the plaintiff had reasonable notice of, and
used Twitter.7 Teen Facebook profiles had a median manifested his or her consent to, the online agree-
of 300 friends, and teen Twitter accounts had a me- ment. If a website’s customer was informed of the
dian of 79 followers. Significant percentages of teen contract terms, the customer is bound by those
social media users report sharing their photographic terms. The court explained that “clickwrap” agree-
likeness (91%), school name (71%), city of residence ments, in which the user is required to click a box
(71%), e-mail address (53%), and cell phone num- consenting to the site’s contract terms before he or
ber (20%). Sharing in each of these categories in- she is allowed to proceed on the website, have been
creased significantly from 2006 to 2012. In addition, upheld routinely by federal courts.
on the online profile they used most, teen social me- Courts considering “browsewrap” agreements,
dia users frequently posted their real name (92%), which operate by binding the website’s user through
personal interests (84%), birth date (82%), relation- use of the website alone, have similarly held that the
ship status (62%), and videos of themselves (24%). A validity of a browsewrap turns on whether the web-
significant minority of teen Facebook users (14%) site user had actual or constructive knowledge of the
kept the online profile completely public, and a website’s terms and conditions before using the site.9
majority (64%) of teen Twitter users knowingly In one case in which the court upheld the validity of
“tweeted” publicly. a browsewrap agreement and concluded that the user
Teen social media users in the Pew survey did not had breached the agreement, the court observed that
express high levels of concern about third-party ac- any reasonable adult in the defendant’s position
cess to their personal data, with only nine percent would have understood the basic terms of the con-
reporting being “very concerned.”7 At the same time, tract.10 What about nonadults? Do users who are
one in six teens reported having been contacted on- under age 18 also become legally bound by clickwrap
line by someone the teen did not know in a way that or browsewrap contracts? Despite a general attitude
made the teen feel scared or uncomfortable; one in in the law that persons under the age of 18 are not
three had received online advertising that was inap- legally capable of consenting to various activities,

314 The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
 Costello, McNiel, and Binder

such as voting, purchasing property, or purchasing began to investigate the breadth and depth of infor-
alcohol or tobacco, adolescents can, and regularly do, mation companies were obtaining. In one example of
form contracts to participate in online activities. such an exposé, a television reporter used the name of
a known child killer to purchase a list of children’s
Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act names.13
The main federal law regarding juveniles’ online Testifying in favor of privacy protections for chil-
privacy protects only youths who are under the age of dren, EPIC’s director, Marc Rotenberg, explained
13. Age 13 became a cutoff in the online world in that problems in the marketing industry warranted
2000 with the passage of COPPA, a federal law that Congress’ action. Collection of data about children
protects the privacy of children by requiring parental based on their online activities was increasing “at a
consent for the collection or use of children’s per- phenomenal rate,” posing “a substantial threat to the
sonal information. Passed in response to a concern privacy and safety of young people.”14 According to
that companies were using online marketing tech- Mr. Rotenberg, legal standards and government reg-
niques that targeted children and then collecting ulation were practically nonexistent, and industry
children’s personal information without parental self-regulation was not well-suited to protect chil-
consent or notification, COPPA defines a child as an dren’s privacy.
individual under the age of 13.2,11 In March 1998, the Federal Trade Commission
In the 1990s, the Internet became a major tool for (FTC) presented Congress with a report that ad-
commerce as well as communications. With the use dressed the lack of regulation and protection of chil-
of the Internet by an increasing number of house- dren’s information online, which was followed in
holds in the United States came a resulting increase July 1998 by a Senate bill entitled, The Children’s
in the use of online programs by children. The Elec- Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998. Portions of
tronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) reported this bill were enacted by Congress and signed into
that “[b]y 1998, almost 10 million children in the law by President Clinton on October 21, 1998, be-
United States had access to the Internet.”11 With coming effective on April 21, 2000.2,11
Internet marketing, unlike with print media or tele- The law applies to operators of commercial web-
vision, companies were able to benefit from not only sites aimed at children under the age of 13, as well as
conveying information to consumers, including chil- to commercial websites for general audiences, among
dren, but also obtaining information from them. Ac- which an operator has actual knowledge are children
cording to EPIC, “[t]he interactive nature of the
under the age of 13.2 Among its provisions, COPPA
Internet enabled marketers to collect personal infor-
requires that website operators obtain parental con-
mation from children through their registration to
chat rooms and discussion boards, to track behavior sent before collecting personal information from
of web surfers through advertisements, and to prom- children. It also requires operators to allow parents to
ise gifts in exchange for personal information.” This prohibit disclosure of this information to third par-
information was then compiled and sold to third ties, to review the information and have it deleted,
parties for commercial purposes. and to prevent its further use or collection of chil-
Along with the increase in Internet use and the dren’s personal information. Website operators also
growing practice of companies’ obtaining informa- must take steps to protect this information and to
tion about children soon came an increasing aware- retain it only as long as necessary.
ness of the dangers of these practices. A 1996 report Under COPPA’s amended Rule, which went into
by the Center for Media Education highlighted a effect in 2013, “personal information” consists of a
growing body of research demonstrating that chil- variety of identifiers including name, address or geo-
dren are less able than adults to understand the ram- location information, telephone number, Social Se-
ifications of revealing personal information and to curity number, a child’s image or voice, online con-
distinguish a website’s substantive material from the tact information or user name that functions as such,
advertisements around it. It became apparent that a “persistent identifier” allowing recognition of a user
“[t]argeting of children by marketing techniques re- over time and across websites, and information about
sulted in the release of huge amounts of private in- the child or parents that is combined with one of
formation into the market. . . .”12 News media these identifiers.2,15

Volume 44, Number 3, 2016 315

 Adolescents and Social Media

Criticism of COPPA has included concerns about just like adults, at least when there is no disclaimer on
what the FTC requires of a website to verify pa- the website. Some companies, like Amazon, claim
rental consent, including “sending/faxing signed on their website that they do not sell to children:
printed forms, supplement of credit card numbers, “Amazon.com does not sell products for purchase
calling toll-free numbers, or forwarding digital sig- by children. We sell children’s products for pur-
natures through email.”11 These methods “are too chase by adults. If you are under 18, you may use
costly, cumbersome, and inadequate in protecting Amazon.com only with the involvement of a par-
personal information.”11 In addition, there are ent or guardian.”19
complaints that the FTC has not enforced COPPA The federal district court case of A.V. v. iPara-
adequately.11 digms, LLC, demonstrates that a court will find that a
Typically, the official terms of service for social minor is capable of agreeing to online terms of use.20
networking sites, such as Facebook and MySpace, The A.V. court determined that the parties (four mi-
mirror the COPPA regulations, stating that 13 years nor high school students and an online proprietary
is the minimum age to be able to participate.3 Where technology system) entered into a valid contractual
did this age cutoff come from? The FTC reported agreement. When the students clicked “I Agree” to
that Congress decided to apply COPPA’s protections acknowledge their acceptance of the terms of the
to children under 13 because it recognized “that clickwrap agreement they became bound by the
younger children are particularly vulnerable to over- company’s terms. Among other arguments, the stu-
reaching by marketers and may not understand the dents asserted the defense of infancy to try to void the
safety and privacy issues created by the online terms of the agreement. Under Virginia state law, a
collection of personal information.”16 According to contract with an infant is voidable by the infant when
COPPA’s final Rule, the American Psychological As- he or she attains the age of majority, but the A.V.
sociation “stressed the need for a high standard for court would not allow the infancy defense to void the
parental consent because children under the age of students’ contractual obligations after they benefit-
13 do not have the developmental capacity to under- ted from the contract.
stand the nature of a website’s request for informa- Another court concluded that minor plaintiffs
tion and its implications for privacy.”17 A lawyer stated a claim for declaratory judgment that their
with expertise in COPPA law explained that age 13 online contracts were void, distinguishing those cases
was selected “because it was felt that kids over this age in which a minor seeks to void only a portion of an
were tech savvy enough to understand the ramifica- online agreement while retaining some benefits of
tions of providing information to third parties.”18 the agreement.21
However, the assumption that adolescents age 13 Other cases have demonstrated the ease with
and over do understand and consider the potential which minors can circumvent the age restrictions of
consequences of posting personal information online online services and the lack of legal protection against
is not well supported, either by the law’s treatment of this practice. A federal court of appeals held that an
teens in other contexts or by current understanding online service’s contract with a minor is valid and
of their developmental capacities, as will be discussed enforceable, and the court explained that even the
below. fact that an online service cannot verify the age of the
user does not render such an agreement invalid. In
Juveniles Aged 13 to 17 Online Doe v. SexSearch.com, an adult who met an underage
Even if COPPA were perfectly enforced and effec- person through the defendant’s online dating service
tive in protecting the privacy of children under age and was criminally charged after a sexual encounter,
13, youths aged 13 to 17 are not protected by the law. sued the online service for failing to sufficiently
The FTC has said that although COPPA does not screen the underage person from its registry.22 He
apply to those aged 13 to 17, “the FTC is concerned alleged that the defendant online service breached its
about teen privacy and does believe that strong, more contract with him by allowing the minor to sign up
flexible, protections may be appropriate for this age without the defendant’s verifying that she was in fact
group.”16 Nevertheless, teens who have not yet at least 18 (the site required only that users check a
reached the age of legal majority are capable of legally box indicating they were at least 18 years old). Be-
contracting or consenting to online terms of service, cause the website’s terms and conditions stated that

316 The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
 Costello, McNiel, and Binder

the online service could not guarantee, and assumed relatively small proportion of adolescents’” who engage in
illegal activity “‘develop entrenched patterns of problem
no responsibility for verifying, the accuracy of infor- behavior.’” And in Graham, we noted that “developments
mation provided by other users, and did not include in psychology and brain science continue to show funda-
a promise to prevent minors from registering, the mental differences between juvenile and adult minds”—for
court concluded that the plaintiff did not demon- example, in “parts of the brain involved in behavior con-
trol.” We reasoned that those findings— of transient rashness,
strate a valid breach-of-contract claim. proclivity for risk, and inability to assess consequences— both
Similarly, in People v. Schutze, the court affirmed a lessened a child’s “moral culpability” and enhanced the pros-
defendant’s sentence for child sexual abuse and com- pect that, as the years go by and neurological development
municating with another on the Internet to commit occurs, his “‘deficiencies will be reformed’” [citations omitted]
(Ref. 30, pp 2464 –5).
this felony.23 On the question of intent, the evidence
showed that the defendant believed he was commu- The Supreme Court has also recognized that
nicating with a 14-year-old girl. The person who outside the criminal context, youth are different
established the online persona testified that she told from adults and that minors are therefore treated
the defendant she was 14, that her online profile differently throughout the law. In the 2011 case of
information stated that she was 14, and that she did J.D.B. v. N. Carolina, the Court listed the exam-
not have to falsely claim she was 18 years old to access ples of the many “legal disqualifications placed on
the online chat room, because she had set up the
children as a class.” A minor’s contract is voidable
account as if her mother had the account and gave
if the minor chooses to void it. Minor children
the 14-year-old access to it.
have the legal right to acquire and to own prop-
erty, but they are considered in the law incapable
Juveniles in Other Legal Contexts of managing property. In almost every state, indi-
Adolescents aged 13 to 17 are recognized as devel- viduals under 18 years of age are prohibited from
opmentally immature in other legal contexts.24 –27 voting, from serving on juries, or from marrying
Recent United States Supreme Court cases regarding without parental consent.31
the death penalty and the sentence of life in prison In addition to capacity to contract, right to vote,
without the possibility of release for juveniles have and ability to marry, minors are prohibited by law
underscored that juveniles are treated differently in from purchasing alcohol and tobacco and from own-
the law than are adults.28 –30 In the 2012 U.S. Su- ing firearms. What all of these examples have in com-
preme Court case of Miller v. Alabama, in which the mon is that just because adolescents might want to
Court held that states cannot impose mandatory life engage in certain activities and might even appear at
sentences without parole for juvenile offenders, Jus- first glance to be capable of doing so (choosing to
tice Kagan summed up the judiciary’s view of juve- drink alcohol or use tobacco, enter into contracts,
niles in the criminal context: and vote) does not mean that the law necessarily
Roper and Graham establish that children are constitution-
views them as capable of engaging in these activities.
ally different from adults for purposes of sentencing. Be- Rather, youth are protected from the risks of their
cause juveniles have diminished culpability and greater own immaturity. Such protection is not, however,
prospects for reform, we explained, “they are less deserving
of the most severe punishments.” Those cases relied on
applied to online activity. U.S. laws recognize that
three significant gaps between juveniles and adults. First, adolescents cannot contract like adults, but allows
children have a “ ‘lack of maturity and an underdeveloped them to do the equivalent of entering into a contract
sense of responsibility,’ ” leading to recklessness, impulsiv-
ity, and heedless risk-taking. Second, children “are more
by engaging in social media and other online com-
vulnerable . . . to negative influences and outside pres- munications. Even if the adhesiveness of online con-
sures,” including from their family and peers; they have tracts with minors can be legally challenged (e.g., via
limited “contro[l] over their own environment” and lack
the ability to extricate themselves from horrific, crime-
assertion of the infancy doctrine and intellectual
producing settings. And third, a child’s character is not as property and copyright arguments),32,33 the negative
“well formed” as an adult’s; his traits are “less fixed” and his consequences of a teenager’s misguided posting of
actions less likely to be “evidence of irretrievabl[e]
deprav[ity].”
personal information are often immediate and run
the risk of “going viral” through unwelcome repost-
Our decisions rested not only on common sense— on what
“any parent knows”— but on science and social science as ing by others. Contract law protections do little to
well. In Roper, we cited studies showing that “‘[o]nly a ameliorate these dangers.

Volume 44, Number 3, 2016 317

 Adolescents and Social Media

Adolescent Brain Development cognitive skills (including resistance to interference

The Supreme Court’s assertions about differences in working memory, digit span, and verbal fluency)
between minors and adults that affect both minors’ and measures of psychosocial maturity (including
culpability and their need for protection are founded risk perception, sensation seeking, impulsivity, resis-
in the growing body of knowledge of adolescent neu- tance to peer influence, and future orientation).
There were age differences in cognitive capacity
rodevelopment. The Court’s decision in Miller v.
across early adolescence but not after age 16, reflect-
Alabama was based in part on the joint amici curiae
ing the pattern seen in the aforementioned assess-
brief filed by the American Psychological Associa-
ments of legal competencies. In measures of psy-
tion, the American Psychiatric Association, and the chosocial maturity, however, there were no age
National Association of Social Workers, which high- differences among participants aged 10 to 16, but
lighted research that “has shown that adolescents’ there were differences between the 16- to 17-year-old
judgment and decision-making differ from adults’ in and 22-and-older age groups and between the 18- to
several respects: Adolescents are less able to control 21-year-old and 26-and-older age groups. The re-
their impulses; they weigh the risks and rewards of searchers compared these data to the results of Grisso
possible conduct differently; and they are less able to et al.,36 who studied juvenile trial competence. Com-
envision the future and apprehend the consequences paring like age groups, they found that the pattern of
of their actions. Even older adolescents who have differences in cognitive capacity among age groups
developed general cognitive capacities similar to closely paralleled the age differences in abilities sig-
those of adults show deficits in these aspects of social nificant to trial competence.37 These results suggest
and emotional maturity.”34 that psychosocial maturity develops later in adoles-
Studies of adolescents’ ability to make informed cence than do general cognitive abilities.
decisions in other legal settings help to demonstrate Steinberg and colleagues37 pointed out the rele-
that the skills necessary for different aspects of vance of their findings to the treatment of adoles-
decision-making reach maturity at different rates. A cents under the law. They noted:
study of juveniles’ comprehension of their Miranda
When it comes to decisions that permit more deliberative,
rights to silence and counsel compared youths aged reasoned decision-making, where emotional and social in-
10 to 16 to adults aged 17 to 50.35 As a group, juve- fluences on judgment are minimized or can be mitigated,
niles younger than 15 performed more poorly than and where there are consultants who can provide objective
information . . . adolescents are likely to be just as capable
adults on measures of their understanding of the of mature decision-making as adults, at least by the time
words and phrases used in Miranda warnings and of they are 16 [Ref. 37, p 592].
their perception of the role and significance of these
rights in the legal process. In a study of juveniles’ On the other hand:
competence to stand trial, Grisso and colleagues36 . . . in situations that elicit impulsivity . . . characterized by
compared youths aged 11 to 17 to young adults aged high levels of emotional arousal or social coercion, or that
do not encourage or permit consultation with an ex-
18 to 24. They found that juveniles younger than 16 pert . . . adolescents’ decision-making, at least until they
performed more poorly than adults on an assessment have turned 18, is likely to be less mature than adults’ [Ref.
of understanding of court procedures, personnel, and 37, p 592].
trial rights; ability to process information related to The evolving understanding of adolescent brain
making legal decisions; and appreciation of the rele- development and behavioral maturation includes
vance of information to one’s situation. Sixteen- and the dual-process model of judgment and decision-
17-year-olds performed similarly to adults. making27 and ongoing structural and neurochemical
Steinberg and colleagues,37 noting that such stud- changes noted in the developing teenage brain that
ies as those of juvenile competence to stand trial and occur into young adulthood.25–27 Albert and Stein-
comprehension of Miranda rights focus on cognitive berg27 reviewed “cold” (cognitive, logical, analytic)
skills such as information-processing and logical rea- and “hot” (emotional, impulsive, experiential) sys-
soning, examined how the maturation of cognitive tems of information processing. Although adoles-
capacity such as these compared with the develop- cents have generally reached analytic maturity by
ment of psychosocial maturity. To participants aged their mid-teens, their still-developing experiential
10 to 30, the researchers administered tests of basic systems are particularly susceptible to social and

318 The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
 Costello, McNiel, and Binder

emotional factors (e.g., peer pressure, romantic at- younger than age 18 to remove their own postings
tachment), and their capacity for behavioral self- from that website. In addition, the statute requires
regulation is incomplete. Neuroscience research has websites to provide clear instructions to minors on
shown adolescent brains to be in a continuous state how to delete their postings.38 – 40 The law has been
of maturation, demonstrating changes in myelina- hailed by organizations such as Common Sense Me-
tion, synaptic pruning, and development of the pre- dia, whose CEO, James Steyer, noted, “Kids and
frontal cortex that occur into the mid-20s. In addi- teenagers often self-reveal before they self-reflect.”39
tion, a documented increased susceptibility to the Like COPPA, the eraser button law applies to op-
effects of the neurotransmitter dopamine that occurs erators of websites or online or mobile applications
during the hormonal changes of puberty lends fur- directed at minors or those with actual knowledge
ther scientific support to the increased risk-taking that the minor uses its website or online or mobile
and reward-seeking behaviors that are typical of application. Also like COPPA, the statute’s evident
adolescence.25,27 intention is to protect the privacy of young persons.
Differences in the rate of cognitive and psychoso- But the law appears to expand on COPPA in two
cial maturity are significant to the assessment of ad- important ways. First, it goes further in protecting
olescents’ ability to make informed decisions regard- minors’ privacy by prohibiting websites and mobile
ing participation in online activities. When faced applications from advertising products or services in-
with the decision of whether to agree to the terms of cluding alcoholic beverages, firearms, fireworks,
service of a social media website, an adolescent is aerosol paint that can be used to deface property,
able, and likely, to click a “yes” box without logical tanning devices, dietary supplements containing
reflection (and very often without reading the terms ephedrine group alkaloids, tobacco, and lottery tick-
to which they are agreeing), without consultation ets. Second, the eraser button law applies to the
with an adult, and without considering the potential group of adolescents who are not protected under the
risks of online communication. The circumstances of COPPA law. A “minor” is defined in the eraser but-
adolescents’ ongoing engagement with social media ton law as “a natural person under 18 years of age
websites are similarly likely to elicit the types of who resides in [California].”38 The eraser button law
decision-making in which even older adolescents seems to recognize the value in legal protections for
tend to be immature compared with adults. youth, particularly in the area of privacy.
No law can protect adolescents perfectly from the
Potential Solutions risks of sharing information online. An eraser button
What efforts have been, or should be, put forward law cannot, for example, prevent damage done by
to address the apparent challenge of protecting mi- others viewing this information, or reposting it, be-
nors in their online communications? Expanding fore it is deleted. To help prevent teens from posting
COPPA’s age restriction to 18 years, though it would regrettable material in the first place, parents can play
recognize the vulnerability of juveniles age 13 and an important role by monitoring their teenagers’ on-
over, would seem unlikely to be successful. Teens are line activities and engaging them in discussion of
technologically savvy, already heavily invested in so- their posting habits and decisions. Steinberg empha-
cial media, and apt to find ways to circumvent blan- sized that the ability of adolescents to demonstrate
ket limitations. Policies that recognize the tendency mature decision-making skills is dependent on the
of adolescents to act impulsively and without consid- setting and circumstances:
ering risks, and that take steps to mitigate the conse- When it comes to decisions that permit more deliberative,
quences of such behavior online, may hold more reasoned decision-making, where emotional and social in-
fluences on judgment are minimized or can be mitigated,
promise. Some social networking sites such as Face- and where there are consultants who can provide objective
book and Twitter allow users to delete their posts. information about the costs and benefits of alternative
Legislation in California broadens that capability courses of action, adolescents are likely to be just as
and also makes it mandatory for all child-focused capable of mature decision-making as adults, at least by
the time they are 15 or so. [Ref. 25, p 263].
websites. Effective January 1, 2015, the California
law entitled, “Privacy Rights for California Minors in Although parents cannot eliminate the heavy so-
the Digital World,” colloquially called the “eraser cial and emotional influences on adolescents’ online
button” law, requires a website to allow persons activity, they can serve as consultants to guide their

Volume 44, Number 3, 2016 319

 Adolescents and Social Media

teens through the process of considering potential Further research into youths’ actual online activity
risks and consequences as they communicate online. and its extent is also needed. This should include
According to a 2012 Pew Research Center survey of research into the level of knowledge juveniles have
802 parents of teens, most parents were already con- about the content of the terms of service to which
cerned about their teenagers’ online behavior and they agree when they sign up for online sites and their
privacy: 81 percent were concerned about advertisers knowledge of the limitations of their ability to delete
learning information about their children, 72 per- material they have posted online; the frequency of
cent were concerned about how their children inter- regret youths experience over their online postings
act online with people unknown to them, 69 percent and the content and circumstances of such postings;
were concerned about the impact of their children’s the frequency and content of negative results of on-
online activity on academic and employment oppor- line activity including facing consequences at home,
tunities, and 69 percent were concerned about their school, and in the law; and the social embarrassment
children’s management of their online reputations.41 or bullying by peers resulting from inappropriate on-
Facing potential legal liability for their children’s on- line activities. Such research would be important to
line behavior may further emphasize to parents the illuminate the areas of risk to youth and the conse-
importance of monitoring their teenage children’s quences of their online behavior, as well as to suggest
online activities. In a case involving one minor pos- additional avenues to ameliorate these risks.
ing as another on Facebook and posting damaging
statements under the false account, the Georgia court Conclusion
of appeals concluded “a reasonable jury could find Modern day teenagers participate heavily in social
that, after learning . . . of [their child’s] recent mis- media. As with other potentially risky “offline” activ-
conduct in the use of the computer and Internet ities (e.g., engaging in sex, using alcohol, and smok-
account, the [parents] failed to exercise due care in ing cigarettes), the legal system does not, and cannot,
supervising and controlling such activity going provide perfect protection to minors. Ultimately, ex-
forward.”42 tralegal interventions may prove more practical and
In addition to parental oversight and guidance, effective, focused on educational outreach programs
schools can enable and encourage responsible online for teens and parents that encourage constructive and
behavior. Some schools have begun to specifically healthy online activities, self-protection of personal
teach social media skills to students, using curricula information, and open parent–teen communication.
such as the “Digital Literacy and Citizenship Class- That said, legislation that mandates availability of
room Curriculum” developed by Common Sense certain technologies may provide a measure of addi-
Media.43,44 tional protection. Such a law is California’s “eraser
Psychiatrists can also participate in protecting mi- button” statute, which affords minors the right to
nors from the consequences of their immaturity in remove embarrassing or otherwise regrettable mate-
their online activity. Psychiatrists should be aware of rial they post on social media, thereby protecting
existing and pending federal and state laws regulat- them, in part, from the inherent limitations of youth.
ing, supervising, and even prohibiting minors’ online
activities, including the applicable age groups, the References
types of regulation, and the extent of the protection 1. Lorang MR, McNiel DE, Binder RL: Minors and sexting: legal
these law provide. Psychiatrists can advocate for new implications. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 44:73– 81, 2016
or additional legislation that would increase protec- 2. 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501-6506 (1998)
3. O’Keeffe GS, Clarke-Pearson K, and Council on Communica-
tion for adolescents communicating online, while re- tions and Media: The impact of social media on children, adoles-
maining mindful that youth are always likely to find cents, and families. Pediatrics 127:800 – 4, 2011
ways to circumvent these laws. Psychiatrists can also 4. Carroll JA, Kirkpatrick RL: Impact of social media on adolescent
behavioral health. Oakland, CA: California Adolescent Health
promote and participate in educational programs for Collaborative, 2011. Available at: http://www.phi.org/uploads/
youth regarding the dangers and consequences of im- application/files/g9g6xbfghdxoe3yytmc1rfvvm8lt1ly9sr3j369
pulsive online activities. In addition, psychiatrists pstkojdly15.pdf. Accessed February 2, 2015
who treat adolescents should be aware of how little 5. Schaffer R, Wong C: Kaplan Test Prep survey finds that college
admissions officers’ discovery of online material damaging to
oversight their online activity has and the conse- applicants nearly triples in a year. Available at: http://
quences of their online activity for their lives. press.kaptest.com/press-releases/kaplan-test-prep-survey-finds-that-

320 The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
 Costello, McNiel, and Binder

college-admissions-officers-discovery-of-online-material-damaging- 23. People v. Schutze, 2010 Mich. App. LEXIS 2063 (Mich. Ct. App.
to-applicants-nearly-triples-in-a-year. Accessed February 13, 2015 2010)
6. Ronson J: How one stupid tweet blew up Justine Sacco’s life. 24. Grisso T, Steinberg L, Woolard J, et al: Juveniles’ competence to
The New York Times Magazine, February 12, 2015. Available stand trial: a comparison of adolescents’ and adults’ capacities as
at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one- trial defendants. Law & Hum Behav 27(4):333– 63, 2003
stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html. Accessed February 25. Steinberg L: Does recent research on adolescent brain develop-
12, 2015 ment inform the mature minor doctrine? Journal of Medicine and
7. Madden M, Lenhart A, Cortesi S, et al: Teens, Social Media, and Philosophy 38:256 – 67, 2013
Privacy. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project, 26. Schad S: Adolescent decision making: reduced culpability in the
May 21, 2013. Available at: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/ criminal justice system and recognition of capability in other legal
2013/Teens-Social-Media-And-Privacy.aspx. Accessed February contexts. J Health Care L & Pol’y 14:375– 403, 2011
2, 2015 27. Albert D, Steinberg L: Judgment and decision making in adoles-
8. Burcham v. Expedia, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17104 (E.D. cence. J Res Adolesc 21:211–24, 2011
Mo. 2009) 28. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)
9. Southwest Airlines Co. v. BoardFirst, L.L.C., 2007 U.S. Dist. 29. Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010)
LEXIS 96230 (N.D. Tex. 2007) 30. Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2464 – 65 (2012)
10. Schwartz v. Comcast Corp., -256 F. App’x 515 (3d Cir. 2007) 31. J. D. B. v. North Carolina, 131 S. Ct. 2394, 2403 (2011)
11. Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). Children’s On- 32. Preston CB: Cyberinfants. Pepp L Rev 39:225–78, 2012
line Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). Available at: https:// 33. Cromer Young JD: From the mouths of babes: protecting child
epic.org/privacy/kids/. Accessed February 3, 2015 authors from themselves. West Va L Rev 112(2):431– 67, 2010
12. Montgomery K, Pasnik S: Web of Deception: Threats to Children 34. Brief for the American Psychological Association, the American
from Online Marketing. Center for Media Education, Washing- Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social
ton, DC, 1996 Workers as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners, Miller v.
13. Largest database marketing firm sends phone numbers, addresses Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2464 – 65 (2012) (Nos. 10-9646, 10-
of 5,000 families with kids to TV reporter using name of child 9647)
killer, Business Wire, Inc. (May 13, 1996). Available at: https:// 35. Grisso T: Juveniles’ capacities to waive Miranda rights: an empir-
epic.org/privacy/kids/KCBS_News.html. Accessed February 3, ical analysis. Calif L Rev 68:1134 – 66, 1980
2015 36. Grisso T, Steinberg L, Woolard J, et al: Juveniles’ competence to
14. Testimony and statement for the record of Marc Rotenberg, di- stand trial: a comparison of adolescents’ and adults’ capacities as
rector, Electronic Privacy Information Center, on the Children’s trial defendants. Law & Hum Behav 27:333– 63, 2003
Privacy Protection and Parental Empowerment Act, H.R. 3508, 37. Steinberg L, Cauffman E, Woolard J, et al: Are adolescents less
before the House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, mature than adults? minors’ access to abortion, the juvenile death
Subcommittee on Crime, September 12, 1996. Available at: penalty, and the alleged APA “flip-flop.” Am Psychol 64:583–94,
http://www.epic.org/privacy/kids/EPIC_Testimony.html. Ac- 2009
cessed February 3, 2015 38. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 22580-22582, (2015)
15. Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection 39. Sengupta S: Sharing, with a safety net. The New York Times,
Business Center: Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule: September 19, 2013. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/
Not just for kids’s Sites. Available at: http://business.ftc.gov/ 2013/09/20/technology/bill-provides-reset-button-for-youngsters-
documents/alt046-childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule-not- online-posts.html. Accessed February 13, 2015
just-kids-sites. Accessed February 3, 2015 40. Shontell A: New California law lets kids permanently erase all the
16. Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection stupid things they’ve posted online. Business Insider, September 25,
Business Center: Complying with COPPA: frequently asked 2013. Available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/california-
questions. Available at: http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/ eraser-law-lets-kids-permanently-delete-online-history-2013-9. Ac-
0493-Complying-with-COPPA-Frequently-Asked-Questions. cessed February 13, 2015
Accessed February 3, 2015 41. Madden M, Cortesi S, Gasser U, et al: Parents, Teens, and Online
17. 16 C.F.R. § 312.2, n.13 (1999) Privacy. Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Proj-
18. Chapo R: The History of COPPA (June 24, 2014). Available at: ect, November 14, 2012. Available at: http://pewinternet.org/
http://www.coppalawattorney.com/history-of-coppa. Accessed Reports/2012/Teens-and-Privacy.aspx. Accessed February 3,
February 3, 2015 2015
19. Amazon.com Privacy Notice. Available at: http://www.amazon.com/ 42. Boston v. Athearn, 764 S.E.2d 582 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014)
gp/help/customer/display.html/185-4445055-8997234?ie⫽UTF8 43. Digital Literacy and Citizenship Classroom Curriculum. Common
&nodeId⫽468496. Accessed February 3, 2015 Sense Media. Available at: https://www.commonsensemedia.
20. A.V. v. Iparadigms, LLC 544 F. Supp. 2d 473 (E.D. Va. 2008), org/educators/curriculum. Accessed February 13, 2015
aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, A.V. v. Iparadigms, 44. Shahani A: Should Schools Teach Social Media Skills? MindShift,
LLC, 562 F.3d 630 (4th Cir. 2009) December 4, 2013. Available at: http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/
21. I.B. v. Facebook, Inc., 905 F. Supp. 2d 989 (E.D. Cal. 2012) 2013/12/should-schools-teach-social-media-skills/. Accessed
22. Doe v. Sexsearch.com, 551 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2008) February 13, 2015

Volume 44, Number 3, 2016 321