Will a federal kids' online safety law be enacted before July 2027?
Peer-to-Peer Order Book
Live- A participant offers to buy or sell a contract at a price they choose.
- Another participant takes the opposite side.
- The exchange matches the orders and holds the collateral.
- Correct contracts settle at $1.00 · incorrect at $0.00.
- Fees are shown before any order is submitted.
What this market asks
In plain language: forecasters are estimating the probability that the outcome in the question actually happens by the deadline. The market currently prices 55% YES / 45% NO. Resolution is mechanical — it depends only on the criteria and sources below, not on opinions, headlines, or who "deserves" to win the argument.
- ▸ The Senate version passed 91-3 last session and has been reintroduced with the same coalition.
- ▸ 12 states have enacted conflicting design codes, pushing platforms toward a federal standard.
- ▸ Both parties' leadership listed child online safety in their published 2026 agendas.
- ▸ House leadership has twice declined to schedule the bill over speech-liability concerns.
- ▸ Civil-liberties groups on both flanks oppose the duty-of-care standard as written.
- ▸ Pending First Amendment litigation over state design codes may freeze federal action.
Resolution criteria
Resolves YES if a statute imposing design or duty-of-care obligations on online platforms with respect to minor users is enacted before July 1, 2027. Age-verification-only laws do not count.
- Any participant may flag a resolution within 72 hours with cited evidence.
- Trading pauses; positions freeze at last price while flags are reviewed.
- An independent resolution council (rotating, disclosed members) rules within 14 days using only the stated sources.
- Rulings are published with full written reasoning; credits settle after publication.
Related on Quorly
Discussion · 389 comments
LiveCommittee calendar update: relevant action is now scheduled. In backtests of this market class, a scheduled action adds ~6 points to YES within a week.
The NO side is about timelines, not merits. Even if the outcome eventually happens, the deadline in the criteria is doing a lot of work.
YES at 55% is the value side. When the resolution source is this mechanical, momentum in the underlying process matters more than commentary.
The NO side is about timelines, not merits. Even if the outcome eventually happens, the deadline in the criteria is doing a lot of work.
Following this one closely. The resolution criteria are unusually clean, which is why participation is this high (9.1K forecasters).
The market is underpricing this. Base rates on comparable outcomes put fair value closer to 63%. Holding YES at 50 entry.
Committee calendar update: relevant action is now scheduled. In backtests of this market class, a scheduled action adds ~6 points to YES within a week.
Fading the crowd here. "House leadership has twice declined to schedule the bill over speech-liability concerns." That blocker has killed similar outcomes repeatedly — I have fair value near 45%.
Committee calendar update: relevant action is now scheduled. In backtests of this market class, a scheduled action adds ~6 points to YES within a week.
This market pairs well with the related Pulse question — the gap between public sentiment and market probability is the interesting signal here.
The market is underpricing this. Base rates on comparable outcomes put fair value closer to 63%. Holding YES at 50 entry.
YES at 55% is the value side. When the resolution source is this mechanical, momentum in the underlying process matters more than commentary.