First of all I'm not a lawyer and I should not have to be a lawyer or hire a lawyer to use a computer or create a program.
I'm against age verification of any kind.
I think the California Digital Age Assurance Act AB 1043 is unconstitutional.
In addition, we already have a good method of parental controls that works to protect children.
In addition, it is unfair to small developers because the cost of compliance is high. In addition, it makes giving away a fun demo or game very risky because if you just make a mistake it could bankrupt you.
The law is written so vague and wide ranging they can fine you for almost any reason. They did not define what type of program is allowed for what age range. For example, the law does not tell you if a game with a gun is allowed for a child so if you allow a child to play a game with a gun you don't know if that will result in a fine because the government will say it was miscategorized. This means that any game for children can be fined if the government feels like saying it was miscategorized.
This law makes it more dangerous for children because the age of children will be reported to all programs instead of being kept anonymous.
The government system can require transmitting age information over the internet where it can sometimes be stored in a database at a company which means the data can be stolen if there is a data breech.
It can enable criminals to identify children by simply creating a program. The government law does not prevent criminals from creating programs and all programs must get an age signal. Will the government in the future require anyone that creates a program to be registered and licensed with the government.
This law is self reporting or on the honor system which means anyone can lie about their age. An adult can lie about being a child so they can chat with other children or a child can lie about being an adult to chat with other adults. This is why I think the plan is for future new laws requiring biometric ID instead of self reporting age.
It is obvious the goal of protecting children is a lie and the real purpose of the law is the first stage of what the government wants to turn into a surveillances system where in the future biometric ID will be required before you are allowed to use a computer or the internet.
AI Overview
Adding a "California ban" license likely will not protect you from fines under the
California Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043). The law applies broadly to operating systems and app stores providing services to California residents, with penalties up to per violation. If your service is accessible in California, you are likely subject to its compliance requirements starting January 1, 2027. LegiScan +4
Broad Scope: The law applies to any OS provider or app store "covering" users in California, not just those based there.
Compliance Liability: Negligent violations (e.g., failing to implement proper age-reporting) can result in fines of per child, while intentional violations can result in fines.
Enforcement: The California Attorney General enforces the act.
Risk Mitigation: Rather than banning users, focusing on compliant age-reporting mechanisms is the designated path for compliance, say analysts. Kelley Drye & Warren LLP +5
As of early 2026, the law has triggered, in part, discussions in open-source communities about how to handle compliance in operating systems like Linux. Facebook +1
Disclaimer: I am an AI, not an attorney. The information above is based on legal analysis of the pending AB 1043 legislation and should not be taken as legal advice. Consult with a qualified lawyer regarding regulatory compliance.
AI Overview
Yes, under California's Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043), app developers must request an age bracket signal upon launching any application, regardless of whether it is deemed suitable for all ages
. The law mandates that developers receive a signal indicating if a user is under 13, 13–16, 16–18, or 18+ to ensure compliance with youth safety regulations,. Kelley Drye & Warren LLP +5
Key details regarding the law (effective Jan 1, 2027) include:
Mandatory Request: The requirement to request the signal from the operating system or app store is universal for apps, not just for restricted content.
Actual Knowledge: Once a developer receives the signal, they are deemed to have "actual knowledge" of the user's age bracket, allowing them to tailor the experience securely.
Not Just for Restricted Content: Even if a game is safe for all ages, the check is necessary to determine the user's category (e.g., to ensure a 12-year-old receives child-appropriate data privacy protections).
Enforcement: Violations are handled by the California Attorney General, with penalties of up to for negligent violations and for intentional violations per child. Kelley Drye & Warren LLP +5
If a user falls into a minor category, the app must comply with relevant safety and privacy laws, making the signal necessary even for seemingly benign applications. Kairos AR +1
AI Overview
No, not all websites have to comply directly with California’s Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043). The law primarily mandates that
operating system providers and app stores implement, by January 1, 2027, an interface to determine a user’s age bracket and share that signal with app developers.
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP +3
Key compliance details:
Target Entities: It applies to operating system (OS) providers (Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android) and app stores, not individual websites.
Application Developers: Developers must request this age signal from the OS/app store when their apps are launched.
Scope: It requires that apps (but not websites generally) receive age data to ensure age-appropriate experiences.
Goal: To protect minors by having systems, not individual websites, verify age.
I personally don't want any age verification but even if you want age verification the governments law is not just demanding age verification it is demanding the implementation method you must use age verification.
This means that government politicians are doing the job of a programmer analyst.
AI Overview
California Assemblymember
Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) authored the Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043), signed into law on October 13, 2025, with a focus on device-level age signaling rather than content moderation. The method requires operating systems (like Apple, Google, Microsoft) to collect user age at setup and send signals to apps.
www.troutmanprivacy.com +3
Key Details on the Method and Design:
Method Design: The approach was structured to avoid the constitutional issues that blocked previous, more restrictive age-verification laws in other states. It mandates that device manufacturers (OS providers) and app stores obtain, and subsequently communicate, age information to app developers to ensure compliance.
Purpose: The goal is to provide a "privacy-preserving" method that allows parents to set parameters on minors' activities without excessive data exposure.
Signaled Information: Operating systems must use an "accessible interface" during account setup to ask for the user's date of birth or age range.
Effective Date: The requirements, which take effect on January 1, 2027, were introduced by Wicks to address children's safety regarding cyberbullying, sextortion, and mental health.
Opposition and Support: The bill is sponsored by Children Now. It faced opposition from groups like the Chamber of Progress and Lenovo regarding implementation. Reason Foundation +5
The law, which passed unanimously in both the Assembly and Senate, is designed to ensure developers have a reliable "age bracket signal" for users, with an emphasis on keeping the technical implementation manageable for companies, although it has faced criticism regarding how to handle shared family devices.
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP +1
The governments method of age verification implementation transmits age information to every program and then the program determines how to handle the age information. A program can be local only or internet connected. This means age information can be transmitted over the internet and stored in a database which gives lots of possibilities for the information to be stolen.
In addition, the governments method allows criminals to create a program to identify who the children are and target them if they want.
A better method of age verification would be for the program to tell the OS what age is allowed to run the program and let the OS decide what to do with that information as to if the OS will allow running the program or not. This method does not require transmitting age information over the internet and does not give the chance of storing age information in a database where it can be stolen. This method would mean you can either run or not run the program and would not mean the program could run in a special mode for children so separate programs would have to be made for adult or children but think that is the easier method anyway.
The AI does not give a good answer as to why a program needs to check age single if the program is for all ages. It basically just says the law shifts liability to the developers which requires to know if the user is a minor to enforce child safety.
AI Overview
Under the California Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043), apps must check age signals, even if they are for "all ages," because the law shifts legal liability to developers, requiring them to know if a user is a minor to enforce
child safety measures. A "child-safe" app might still need to alter data practices or content for minors, as the signal helps identify child users without needing full photo ID checks. www.troutmanprivacy.com +3
Why "All Ages" Programs Must Still Check Age Signals:
Legal "Actual Knowledge": Under AB 1043, the age bracket signal (e.g., under 5, 5-9, 10-12, 13-15, etc.) is considered "actual knowledge" of a user's age. Even if a program is open to everyone, it must treat children's data differently than adults' to comply with COPPA and CCPA.
Required Compliance: The law requires developers to check for the signal upon app download/launch.
Age-Appropriate Design: The law mandates developers use the signal to create age-appropriate experiences, even if an app is generally intended for all ages, it may need to restrict specific features, data collection, or ad targeting for younger users.
Avoid Penalties: Failure to comply can result in fines of up to to per affected child, enforced by the California Attorney General. www.troutmanprivacy.com +4
Essentially, the law makes age-assurance a "shared layer of infrastructure" where, even if an app is safe for children, it must proactively demonstrate it knows its users' age brackets to avoid liability.
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP +1
AI Overview
The California Digital Age Assurance Act (Assembly Bill 1043), signed into law on October 13, 2025, and operative on January 1, 2027, establishes a new framework for online youth safety in California. The law mandates that operating system providers (like Apple and Google) and app stores implement a device-based age signal to categorize users into age brackets (under 13, 13–15, 16–17, 18+) Shufti +3
Regarding the financial impact on businesses, here are the key facts regarding the penalties and their application:
Penalty Structure: The Act allows the California Attorney General to enforce compliance with civil penalties of up to $2,500 per affected child for negligent violations and up to $7,500 per affected child for intentional violations.
"Per Child" Nature: Because these penalties are assessed per user, non-compliance could theoretically result in massive cumulative fines if a platform with many minor users fails to implement the required signals correctly.
Concerns About Impact: Concerns have been raised that these, and other recent California privacy laws, could impose significant financial and technical burdens on smaller developers and open-source projects.
Good Faith Exception: The law includes a "good faith effort" clause. If an operating system provider or app store acts in good faith to comply, taking into account available technology, they are not liable for an erroneous signal, nor are they liable for the actions of a developer that receives a signal.
Enforcement Control: Unlike similar laws in other states (like Utah and Texas), AB 1043 assigns enforcement authority solely to the California attorney general and does not allow for private lawsuits (private right of action), which reduces the threat of class-action litigation. LegiScan +6
The law was designed to be a "privacy-preserving" model intended to reduce data over-collection while providing a standard framework for protecting minors online. It is scheduled to become fully operational by January 1, 2027, with a grace period for existing accounts until July 1, 2027.
Ondato +1
AI Overview
While California's Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043) was signed into law in October 2025, courts generally prefer to wait until a law is enacted and active before declaring it unconstitutional, though they may hear challenges beforehand if the threat of harm is immediate. The act does not become effective until January 1, 2027, which allows time for legal challenges regarding First Amendment and privacy concerns.
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP +4
Enforcement Date: The act becomes fully enforceable on January 1, 2027, with requirements for existing devices to comply by mid-2027.
Preventative Legal Action: While legal challenges can be filed early, courts typically avoid premature "ripeness" issues, often waiting to see the actual implementation of the regulations. However, stakeholders can challenge laws if there is a credible threat of prosecution or significant compliance pressure.
Constitutional Concerns: Critics argue that AB 1043 is likely to be found unconstitutional for violating the First Amendment by restricting access to information and requiring user identification, often citing precedents that have rejected similar age-authentication measures. Kelley Drye & Warren LLP +4
Although legal experts at Hunton Andrews Kurth and Troutman Pepper have analyzed the potential pitfalls of the law, the ultimate determination of its constitutionality will likely occur in court leading up to or following the 2027 effective date. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has explicitly raised concerns that this law functions as a restrictive age gate. www.troutmanprivacy.com +3
AI Overview
Linux is positioned to gain popularity among privacy-focused users due to its resistance to mandatory, centralized age verification, although this advantage is currently under threat from new legislative pressures. While Windows, iOS, and Android move toward device-level age-checking to comply with regulations, Linux’s decentralized nature makes implementing such controls difficult, potentially making it a sanctuary for anonymous computing.
Facebook +4
Age Verification Challenges to Linux
Legal Pressure: Laws such as California’s Digital Age Assurance Act (effective 2027) and similar legislation in Colorado and Brazil require operating systems to collect age data and pass a "signal" to apps, a significant challenge for open-source systems that do not use centralized user accounts.
The "Age Signal" Conflict: Upcoming laws could force Linux distributions to implement Age Assurance APIs, where users may need to provide a self-reported age range during setup, creating a conflict with Linux's reputation for privacy and lack of forced user tracking.
Voluntary Compliance: Many in the Linux community are debating how to respond, with some, like GrapheneOS, stating they will not mandate age verification even if it means losing market access in certain regions.
GovInfoSecurity +3
Why Linux May Gain Popularity
Privacy Alternative: If mainstream operating systems (Windows/macOS) are forced to adopt strict, invasive age tracking and user identification, Linux may gain favor as a tool for users seeking to maintain anonymity and control over their data.
"Ageless" Movement: The community is actively exploring technical solutions to satisfy legal requirements while protecting user identities and preventing the creation of a centralized identity layer.
Decentralization Advantage: The lack of a single "Linux company" makes it difficult for authorities to force a single, universal age-verification system, unlike Windows or Apple systems, giving users alternative, non-compliant options.
Reddit +4
Current State of Linux Popularity
Desktop Growth: Linux desktop market share reached a high of 4.7% in 2025, driven by a 70% increase in adoption since July 2022.
Gaming Catalyst: Steam on Linux jumped past 5% usage in April 2026, with the Steam Deck playing a major role in increasing Linux adoption.
YouTube +1
In summary, the demand for operating systems that do not force users to create an account or verify their age is rising, and Linux is often viewed as the primary, yet increasingly challenged, alternative in this space.
AI Overview
Mandatory age verification laws, particularly in California and proposed federal legislation in the US, are pushing age verification deeper into the technology stack—specifically into operating systems (OS) like Windows, iOS, and Android. While this move is intended to protect minors by regulating app access and content, it has sparked significant concerns over privacy, user experience, and the feasibility of implementation.
Facebook +2
Here is an analysis of how these changes are impacting and potentially threatening Microsoft, Apple, and Google:
Impact on Major Tech Companies (Microsoft, Apple, Google)
Implementation Costs & Responsibility: Operating system providers (Microsoft, Google, Apple) must now build interfaces into their OS setup process to collect birth dates or ages. This shifts the burden of proof from individual apps to the platform provider, introducing significant compliance costs and potential liability.
Disruption of User Experience: Initial reports suggest that, for example, iOS 26.4 age verification has been described as a "disaster" and "ridiculous" by users facing issues with the new prompts, prompting calls to block updates to avoid the feature.
High-Stakes Fines: The legal landscape is demanding, with potential penalties of up to $10,000 a day in fines for non-compliance, as seen in state-level efforts.
Loss of Data/Ad Revenue: These regulations are seen by some as a conflict of interest for companies like Google and Apple, who benefit from high app download counts and data collection. Tightening access could affect their ad-targeting models, as evidenced by reports of apps previously misclassifying age to boost downloads.
Increased Vulnerability to Attacks: The complexity of managing a centralized, state-mandated age-verification database could create new security risks and vulnerabilities, potentially damaging trust if breaches occur.
YouTube +5
Challenges and Potential "Killing" Points
Unenforceable in Open Systems: For open-source or decentralized systems, implementing these checks is difficult, as users can simply bypass them. However, for "closed" systems like Windows or Apple, this forces a "walled garden" approach that could frustrate users who prefer freedom.
Privacy Advocacy Backlash: Over 400 computer scientists have warned that these measures pose major privacy and security risks, which could lead to a consumer revolt against the platforms implementing these checks.
Rise of Alternatives: Privacy-focused alternatives or "forks" of operating systems, such as GrapheneOS, have stated they will not comply with these laws, choosing to risk losing access to certain markets rather than implementing the verification tools.
Regulatory Overreach: The broad nature of these laws could create immense technical challenges for standardizing how age is verified across different devices (e.g., computers vs. mobile).
Slashdot +4
Conclusion:
While these laws are unlikely to "kill" Microsoft, Apple, or Android in the sense of bankruptcy, they represent a significant threat to their current business models, operating practices, and user satisfaction. They force these companies into a difficult position: complying with local laws and potentially alienating users, or resisting and facing massive legal challenges.
AI Overview
California Assembly Bill 1043 (Digital Age Assurance Act), effective January 1, 2027, primarily requires operating system (OS) providers and app stores to implement age-verification signals at account setup. While it impacts a broad range of digital services, it does not explicitly require the government to update all of its programs, but rather mandates that digital services (public or private) available to California users conform to these age-verification standards.
Digital Democracy | CalMatters +3
Key details:
Targeted Entities: The law mainly targets operating system providers (like iOS, Android, Windows) and application stores.
Mandate: These providers must create a, "reasonably consistent real-time application programming interface" (API) to signal to developers whether a user is in a specific age bracket (e.g., under 18).
Scope: It covers, "any company that owns or maintains a software application" accessible on those systems.
Impact: If government entities operate consumer-facing apps or platforms that fall under the definition of a, "covered application," they will likely need to comply with the, "age-bracket signal," requirements by January 1, 2027.
Penalty: Non-compliance can lead to civil penalties enforced by the California Attorney General.
Digital Democracy | CalMatters +2
The law focuses on the software interface during user registration for digital services, not a comprehensive, overarching redesign of all internal or, "non-app," government systems.
Digital Democracy | CalMatters +3
If you create a corporation and fund it with a small amount of money like $100 then if the corporation creates a game that results in a fine and the government fines the corporation millions the government will only get $100 when the corporation goes bankrupt.
However, the cost and time of creating a corporation is a lot.