Google Inc. (Alphabet Inc.) | Child Safety Lobbying Report at Google Inc. (Alphabet, Inc.)

Status
Filed
Previous AGM date
Resolution details
Company ticker
GOOGL
Lead filer
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Governance
ESG sub-theme
  • Lobbying / political engagement
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Technology
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
RESOLVED:  Shareholders request the Board of Directors analyze and report to shareholders (at reasonable cost and omitting confidential information) on whether and how Alphabet is aligning its lobbying and policy influence activities and positions, both direct and indirect (through trade associations, coalitions, alliances, and other organizations) with its child safety polices and commitments, including the activities and positions analyzed, the criteria used to assess alignment, and involvement of stakeholders, if any, in its analytical process. In evaluating the degree of alignment between its child safety policies and its lobbying, Alphabet should consider not only its policy positions and those of organizations of which it is a member but also the actual lobbying activities, such as legislative comment submissions.
Supporting statement
According to the Wall Street Journal, Alphabet has co-led Big Tech?s opposition to the Kid?s Online Safety Act (KOSA) which ?would assign to platforms what it calls a ?duty of care,? essentially putting a legal onus on them to take steps to address mental-health disorders, addiction-like behaviors, bullying, sexual exploitation and more.? It further reported that KOSA is the first major federal legislation about child safety online since 1998 and had enjoyed rare bipartisan support until targeted by Big Tech lobbyists. This is just the latest in a long history of lobbying against (or seeking special carve outs) in Congressional child safety related bills. Alphabet reported lobbying on child safety bills including S.1409 Kids Online Safety Act, S.1207 EARN IT Act 2023, S.1418 Children and Teens Online Privacy Protection Act, S.90 and H.R.538 Consumers about Smart Devices Act, S.474 REPORT Act, S.1291 Protecting Kids on Social Media Act, and S.1199 STOP CSAM [Child Sexual Abuse Materials] ACT of 2023, among others. On a State level, Google has similarly opposed, or sought carve outs, against legislation in California, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Utah, requiring mandatory age verification aimed to help protect minors. In New York it was reported that ?Google and Meta are spearheading a fierce push to kill New York legislation aimed at protecting children online? regarding the $1 million in Big Tech lobbying against the Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act and the New York Child Data Protection Act.  Google has also lobbied against child safety related legislation in Australia, the United Kingdom and the European Union (amid accusation of illegal lobbying through front groups). Alphabet has several child safety policies and commitments as stated in its Terms of Service, Transparency Reports, Google and You Tube Community Guidelines, Child Safety page, Privacy Page and its 2024 Proxy. Yet, the Company?s lobbying policy appears to be significantly misaligned with its child safety commitments. RESOLVED:  Shareholders request the Board of Directors analyze and report to shareholders (at reasonable cost and omitting confidential information) on whether and how Alphabet is aligning its lobbying and policy influence activities and positions, both direct and indirect (through trade associations, coalitions, alliances, and other organizations) with its child safety polices and commitments, including the activities and positions analyzed, the criteria used to assess alignment, and involvement of stakeholders, if any, in its analytical process. In evaluating the degree of alignment between its child safety policies and its lobbying, Alphabet should consider not only its policy positions and those of organizations of which it is a member but also the actual lobbying activities, such as legislative comment submissions.

DISCLAIMER: By including a shareholder resolution or management proposal in this database, neither the PRI nor the sponsor of the resolution or proposal is seeking authority to act as proxy for any shareholder; shareholders should vote their proxies in accordance with their own policies and requirements.

Any voting recommendations set forth in the descriptions of the resolutions and management proposals included in this database are made by the sponsors of those resolutions and proposals, and do not represent the views of the PRI.

Information on the shareholder resolutions, management proposals and votes in this database have been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable, but the PRI does not represent that it is accurate, complete, or up-to-date, including information relating to resolutions and management proposals, other signatories’ vote pre-declarations (including voting rationales), or the current status of a resolution or proposal. You should consult companies’ proxy statements for complete information on all matters to be voted on at a meeting.