Age assurance policy landscape sees different camps adopt different positions

A maze is a popular metaphor for a complex structure that is difficult to navigate. A panel at the Federal Trade Commission’s age assurance workshop declares itself dedicated to “Navigating the Regulatory Maze of Age Verification.” But the discussion shows the environment to be less like a maze and more like a level in an open world role playing video game, where different characters and viewpoints influence the story. And it turns out not to concern regulations as much as policy positions.

The participants come from some relatively acute corners of the age assurance map. Jennifer Huddleston represents the CATO Institute, a libertarian think tank funded by the Koch brothers. Sara Kloek is VP of education and youth policy for the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), a large trade organization. And Clare Morell is an author and fellow in the Bioethics, Technology and Human Flourishing Program at the Ethics & Public Policy Center (EPPC), a right-wing think tank “working to apply the riches of the Jewish and Christian traditions to contemporary questions of law, culture, and politics.”

Katherine Haas, director of the Consumer Protection Division for the Utah Department of Commerce, is a supporter of Utah’s age verification laws, and age assurance in general. She says Utah’s laws are “reasonably tailored to get at the heart of the issue, which is to protect our children and to make sure that the experiences that they’re having online are appropriately tailored for children.”

Parents, educators should shoulder burden: CATO Institute

Huddleston adopts the now-standard pushback arguments against age checks, pointing to data privacy concerns and the potential to limit access to resources for kids who need them. She falls back to putting the responsibility on parents.

“Parents, not policy makers, are often the best decision makers when it comes to when it’s appropriate for their child to have certain online experiences,” she says. “And in approaching that from a policy point of view, we should look at ways to educate and empower both parents and young people to ensure that they’re able to have more positive experiences online and so that they know what to do, how to go to that trusted adult or to that platform should they encounter a negative experience online.”

The CATO Institute will always argue for less intervention by government, and the narrative that says parents want to be vigilant overseers of what their kids are doing online runs up against many parents’ ability to do so. Public education is not a substitute for law.

Porn is harmful, so blocking it for kids is good: EPPC

In Morell’s view, age verification laws can serve to empower parents, in that they “provide collective solutions to problems that are too large and complex for individual parents to address on their own.” Parental controls don’t work on the school bus, when one kid whose parents haven’t activated them shows porn to his friends.

“Laws like we’ve seen in Australia that are now having age restrictions to actually ban minors under a certain age from social media are recognizing both that there are places on the internet that are not a safe environment for children and have addictive properties and effects.”

The EPPC’s policy position is grounded in religion, and starts from the belief that online porn is a public health crisis that urgently needs to be addressed. In an article for the organization, Morell writes that “without age-verification, and with links to these sites being promoted all over social media, the result has been that America’s kids are frequently being exposed to highly inappropriate sexual material, even when their parents are doing everything to protect them.” The question then becomes what qualifies as inappropriate for an organization whose stated priority is “pushing back against the extreme progressive agenda.”

It’s complicated: SIIA

Sara Kloek of the SIIA offers a take that aims to balance the broad interests of the organization’s many members in the tech sector. “Yes or no, age verification is good or age verification is bad – I don’t think that’s something we can answer without considering what we’re trying to protect children from.” Porn is one thing, but legislation has already identified other targets. “Are we having age verification on a connected fridge?”

Kloek advocates for a risk-based approach that accounts for proportionality, and might demand stronger measures for sites and apps that pose a higher risk to kids. But by nature, the SIIA’s position is more diffuse than those driven primarily by ideology, in that it serves a collective of businesses. Kloek says there are “some deep divides within our membership on the right approach” to online safety legislation. “We’ve been having these discussions internally and really we have come to the big conclusion thus far that everyone in the ecosystem is going to have a role to play when it comes to protecting kids online.”

Social platforms already know how old users are

Political bias aside, Morell’s vision for an ideal age verification law is well within the possible. She emphasizes the importance of defining covered platforms, noting that social media laws like Australia’s are structured to apply to a limited number of large sites. “Narrow targeted definitions are important,” she says.

She advocates for age thresholds on the high end, in part because the technology is better at verifying older faces. She wants laws written “in such a way that maximizes user choice in how they’re going to verify age,” which put ongoing responsibility on platforms to address circumvention – noting, pointedly, that social media platforms almost certainly know how old their users are already. Strong privacy protections and robust enforcement round out her blueprint.

Katherine Haas similarly calls out social media companies, in particular, for objecting to age assurance laws on the grounds that they would mean collecting too much user data.

“I feel like we’re ignoring the fact that most of these companies are data collection companies,” she says “They’re data mining. They already know a ton about us and who our children are, who our families are, our connections, our friends, the worlds that we live in. And so I think it’s kind of rich that we’re sitting here concerned that we’re asking them to age verify when they have the technology, many of them, to know.”

Ondato report shows regulatory momentum in US

The long and short of it is, age assurance policy is work in progress, and legislation is still a moving target. (As an example, Kansas heard arguments on its proposed law, SB 372, this week, facing opposition from the Computer & Communications Industry Association).

To help stakeholders find the easiest path through the Forest of Thorny Laws, Ondato has published a new report, “The Surge of the U.S. Age Verification Laws: 2026 Outlook.”

The resource is pitched as a practical guide to current U.S. requirements, legal risks and implementation options for businesses operating age-restricted digital services. It says “momentum built over the past years suggests that more states are likely to adopt or revise age verification requirements, shaping the compliance environment for businesses in increasingly complex ways.”

“Age verification was once a niche compliance checkbox in the U.S., but has since become a defining requirement for how digital services manage access, identity, and user protection,” says Liudas Kanapienis, CEO of Ondato. “This report helps decision-makers understand what’s already in force, what is likely coming next, and how to implement age checks in a way that balances regulatory demands with privacy and user experience.”

A release says the report “includes a comprehensive state-by-state tracker of enacted, pending, and failed age verification legislation, outlining key legal thresholds, technical requirements, and enforcement mechanisms.” It also “examines the legal shifts shaping 2026, including changing First Amendment interpretations and recent Supreme Court precedent, as well as the acceleration of fragmented state-level regulation and ongoing litigation.”

More coverage from FTC Age Verification Workshop

FTC workshop shows age assurance sector positioned to support legislative trend in US

FTC panel gets existential in pondering why online age verification matters

Age assurance policy landscape sees different camps adopt different positions

How to deploy responsible age checks at scale? Big Tech titans give different answers

Article Topics

age verification  |  biometric age estimation  |  biometrics  |  FTC  |  legislation  |  Ondato  |  regulation