Regulations, but not for us: US age check debate bounces around the tech stack

The so-called tech temperance movement is upon us. Biometric age assurance tools are the new seatbelts, and legislation to make them mandatory for social media platforms and other age-sensitive spaces is flying. Bills beget injunctions from lobby groups representing tech giants. Smaller tech enterprises feel lost in the shuffle. A recent article in Tech Policy states the situation in admirably frank terms: “Everyone wants the benefits of a safer internet for kids, but nobody wants the liability, reputational risk, or the user friction that comes with hard checks.”

Should app stores be safety regulators? The question is currently roiling in U.S. courts, as competing interests continue to argue over who has to bear the cross of age assurance.

Alabama’s HB161 proposes app store age category model

A law requiring app stores to implement age assurance and link the accounts of minors to a parental account is moving through Alabama’s legislative system. The Alabama Daily News reports that the House Committee on State Government has approved HB161, which applies a tiered model, sorting users by age when they create an account into four categories: under 13, between 13 and 15, between 16 and 18, and over 18 years of age.

Depending on the age rating of a given app, underage users would need a parent or guardian’s digital permission to download apps or make in-app purchases.

The bill has advocates and critics. Stephanie Smith, president and CEO of the Alabama Policy Institute, points out that “nowhere in the brick and mortar or real world do children sign contracts, nor should they. They can’t even sign their own field trip form.”

On the other hand, the ACT App Association, a trade group for app developers, says the law would hurt small developers who can’t afford to maintain robust online safety infrastructure. In a blog post published via LinkedIn, the group argues that, “while well-intentioned, these state-by-state approaches create a confusing and costly patchwork for startups and independent developers.”

“If every state develops its own age verification law, developers could soon face 50 different sets of rules, each with its own standards, timelines, and enforcement mechanisms. For small tech, that’s not just confusing; it’s unsustainable.”

ACT has published two resources to help developers navigate the regulatory landscape: an online directory to where each state stands, and a compliance guide that outlines how to understand requirements, prepare systems, and stay compliant as rules take effect.

Meta, remarkably, both supports the law and threatens it with a lawsuit. The Daily News quotes Jennifer Hanley, Meta’s head of North American youth safety, who pushes Meta’s argument that app stores, not platforms, are the right place for age checks.

“Really it’s critical to remember that in order to put teens into things like teen accounts, into age appropriate experiences, apps need to know who is and who is not a teen period,” Hanley says. “As you’re aware, understanding age is really a complex industry-wide challenge because many people, including young people, misrepresent how old they are online. (This bill) we think is the best way to do this.”

In tandem, Justin Hill, speaking on behalf of NetChoice – the legal lobby of which Meta is a member – says the bill is no better than similar ones it has stamped out or blocked with injunctions elsewhere: NetChoice will litigate any social media bill that stands in its way.

“Unfortunately, if this bill passes, it will be enjoined,” Hill says.

Like Alabama, Virginia bill puts users into age bands

In Virginia, where NetChoice is also fighting to block age check legislation, an app store-centered bill has been introduced into the Senate. The App Store Accountability Act,

SB237, has similar architecture to Alabama’s HB161, in that it involves the classification of users into age categories.

“The bill requires a developer to verify the age category of an account holder with a developer’s app and notify app store providers of any significant change to a developer’s app,” says the summary. “The bill also requires a developer to provide a parental consent disclosure for each of its apps to each app store provider that makes the developer’s app available on its app store, and such provider shall provide such disclosure on its app store.”

California model tries to go to the source, but ends up near self-declaration

California is following a path that runs parallel to Alabama’s but does not go to the same place. Its Digital Age Assurance Act, AB 1043, relies on an “age signal” attached to a specific device, which is determined on setup, and attested to by a parent. Once one of four standardized age-bracket signals has been assigned, the signal is made available to apps like Facebook and Instagram.

The idea is to avoid privacy concerns over biometric scans and other age verification tech. Many online platforms, including Google, support the proposal as a “thoughtful” approach that “recognizes shared responsibility.”

Nonetheless, it, too, will surely have its day in court. A report from MLex quotes an analysis by the California Senate Judiciary Committee, which suggests that “AB 1043 is more ‘insulated’ from constitutional challenges because it doesn’t mandate content moderation or restrictions on app developers.”

Constitutional it may be – but that doesn’t make it effective. Ultimately, AB 1043 rests on someone telling Google or Apple their age. This amounts to self-attestation, and promises to be laughably easy to skirt. In the words of Joel Thayer, who wrote the policy framework for the Texas App Store Accountability Act – blocked in 2025 for being unconstitutional – “it’s a nothing burger. It’s a permission-based system that gives Apple and Google the reins to verify users.”

California’s law is an attempt to compromise, but the pertinent question is in whose interest. The First Amendment argument has been useful for NetChoice, but it is being applied as a legal lever, rather than as a good faith defense of free speech. A law that aims to satisfy NetChoice’s preference is one that will only be easier for the lobby to fight against when it inevitably takes its grievance to court.

Article Topics

age verification  |  Alabama  |  app store age verification  |  California  |  legislation  |  United States  |  Virginia