ID Verification Is Rising as Social Media’s Next Big Issue

Whether social media platforms are doing too little or too much to combat misinformation and harmful content has driven heated debate—and litigation.

There also has been movement, as seen by the enactment of state laws during the last three years, on determining who the users posting content to social media platforms are instead of the content itself. The idea isn’t to prohibit, censor, or moderate any speech. Rather it is to empower the reader or viewer with additional information about the true source of whatever content is before them.

Many Americans want to know more. In a 2023 YouGov survey of 1,000 adults, 62% said platforms should require users’ real names and identity verification.

States including California, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming have gone further further—enacting explicit social media impersonation laws to also prohibit impersonation for purposes of harassment, intimidation, threat, or deception to facilitate contact. These laws aren’t an attempt to limit what anyone can say—they aim to prevent false identification.

But what about verifying actual individuals’ identities? No major social media platform offers all users the ability to verify one’s identity. Instead, they verify the identities for individuals and entities who are either higher-profile persons and companies (Snapchat) or paid subscribers (such as Meta Verified for Facebook and Instagram and new Twitter Blue or X).

Legislation introduced in California in February builds on these platforms’ terms of service. The bill would require large social media platforms to seek to verify the identity of influential persons (determined by number of followers or pieces of content) and label the profile page of such individuals either authenticated or unauthenticated. The bill also clarifies that it doesn’t intend to preclude a social media platform from verifying the identities of other users.

This still leaves a question of what each social media platform should do to verify identity. The more information collected, the greater the assurance of accuracy and veracity, while increasing cost and privacy risks. The California bill requires a platform to seek to verify an influential user’s name, telephone number, and email address by using a means of its choice but to use a government issued identification to verify a highly influential individual.

Verification wouldn’t prohibit or censor any speech, nor would it establish the accuracy, relevance, or importance of any content. But it could enable a reader or viewer to make a more informed choice whether to accept or believe content based on who is posting.

Any verification requirements shouldn’t prohibit the posting of anonymous content by either verified or unverified users—it’s important in the digital age to preserve the option of anonymous speech.

It is illegal under federal law to impersonate another person on social media if that person intends to defraud or achieve personal gain. The Federal Trade Commission strengthened this law last month by enabling the agency to directly file federal court cases aimed at forcing scammers to return the money they made from government or business impersonation schemes.

Verification certainly isn’t the solution to all social media ills. But it appears that, based on the action by the states and FTC, many recognize it could help by providing greater assurance that whatever is posted online is by someone whose identify has been verified—or by someone who has chosen not to have their identify verified.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Author Information

Bruce Heiman is partner in the public policy and law group at K&L Gates.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines