Law / United States / 
South Carolina
H.3431 (2026), Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (Act No. 96 of 2026)
S.C. Code Ann. Title 39, ch. 80
In force since , under challenge in court.
An age-appropriate design code rule binding private bodies.
- Audit expectation
- periodic
- Who audits it
- Independent third party
- Where the report goes
- Filed with regulator, Published
- Court action
A suit challenging this law is pending. No court has blocked it. Premium data
What it requires
- Applies to online services, products or features doing business in South Carolina that are reasonably likely to be accessed by minors under 18.
- Set protective default privacy settings for known minors.NIST Privacy FrameworkGV.PO-P2
- Offer opt outs from personalized recommendation systems.NIST Privacy FrameworkCT.PO-P3
- Limit addictive design features.no control in the NIST Privacy Framework
- Limit nighttime and school hours notifications.no control in the NIST Privacy Framework
- Undergo independent third party audits, reported to the Attorney General.no control in the NIST Privacy Framework
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text.
In the frameworks
Our reading of where this law's duties sit in each framework, and in the NIST Privacy Framework, line by line beside each duty above. It never says that running a control meets the law. How we read a framework against the law
If you get it wrong
Penalties
Treble damages available to the Attorney General, and possible personal liability for officers and employees for willful and wanton violations.
Who enforces it
Enforcement body
South Carolina Attorney General
Litigation
- Court
- U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
- Docket
- NetChoice, LLC v. Wilson, No. 3:26-cv-00543-SAL (D.S.C.)
- Posture
- Filed alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations. NetChoice moved for a preliminary injunction on ; briefing was completed and the motion remains pending with no ruling as of this date, so the Act remains enforceable.
Settledness
NetChoice, LLC v. Wilson, No. 3:26-cv-00543 (D.S.C.), challenges the Act, and NetChoice moved for a preliminary injunction on .
- As of
- Under challenge
- Yes
- Open questions
- Was a first public report by an independent third-party auditor due to the Attorney General on or before under Section 39-80-70(A), when the Act took effect on and the section says only that the report issues 'annually, on or before July first'?
- Whose 'financial damages' does Section 39-80-80(B) treble when subsection (A) gives enforcement to the Attorney General alone and the chapter creates no private action?
What it reaches
Age threshold
18
Covered services
Online services, products, or features reasonably likely to be accessed by minors under 18 doing business in South Carolina.
How the hook was established
express
What makes it apply
Market targeting
What it makes you log
Who may demand the log
Auditor or notified body
Log retention
Section 39-80-40(B) also limits retention of a minor's personal data generally to as long as necessary to provide the specific elements of the service the minor knowingly engaged with.
- As of
- Basis
- Purpose bound
- Prohibits retaining
- A minor's personal data collected for age verification or estimation, which must be deleted after use and may not be used for other purposes
Logging duty
The Act uses no word like log or record. It requires an annual public report by an independent third-party auditor that includes an accounting of the reports of harm received and the age verification or estimation methods used, and it requires the service to give the auditor full cooperation and access to information and operations. That report cannot be prepared without records of how the service handled reports and verified ages. Section 39-80-40(A) separately requires age verification data to be deleted after use.
- Kind
- Implicit
- As of
- Provision
- S.C. Code Ann. sec. 39-80-70(A) to (C) (Act No. 96 of 2026, SECTION 1)
- Trigger
- age_assurance
What this law does
Requires online services reasonably likely to be accessed by minors to set protective default privacy settings for known minors, offer opt outs from personalized recommendation systems, limit addictive design features and nighttime and school hours notifications, and undergo independent third party audits reported to the Attorney General. NetChoice sued days after enactment and a preliminary injunction motion is pending.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app operates a social platform or serves under-18s.
Back to the example · Lint your app
Page updated .