NetChoice objects to Arizona law imposing age checks on social media platforms

NetChoice has published its testimony against Arizona’s SB 1747, which places age assurance requirements on the social media platforms it represents.

“NetChoice argues that the bill’s age verification requirements for online platforms are a well-intended but deeply flawed approach that would fail to withstand judicial review,” says a statement from the group, in text that is probably boilerplate by now.

“If enacted, this bill would almost certainly violate Arizonans’ First Amendment rights, weaken their privacy and fail to keep kids safe.”

NetChoice’s baseline argument rests heavily on the First Amendment. “Age verification – whether at the app store level, device or website-level raises constitutional issues – and is now being litigated in other states,” it says. To underline the point, it lists off states in which it has secured permanent injunctions against similar age assurance laws.

“Implementing such a measure in Arizona would likely meet the same fate and lead to costly legal challenges without providing any real benefits to the state’s residents,” it says, with a note of lamentation in its tone.

“Given the legal landscape, SB 1747’s age-verification and parental-consent requirements cannot survive judicial review. Unlike regulating access to physical products no one has a constitutionally enumerated right to buy (cigarettes, alcohol), requiring ID (or similar “identity-based” burdens) for accessing lawful speech violates the First Amendment rights of adults, minors and businesses alike.”

Bullet point arguments define NetChoice’s case

The notes in NertChoice’s song are easy to parse by now. Look, it says, at the efforts our members have made to implement better parental controls. Parents, not the state, should be the arbiters of how far their kids’ First Amendment rights go. If there must be age assurance, app stores and devices are the places to do it, rather than putting the responsibility on individual platforms. And, if kids can’t use our members’ platforms, they will “quickly shift their use to sites at the fringes of the internet, circumventing the protections the law aims to establish.”

A new argument exploits the erroneous conflation of age assurance technology with identity assurance, by suggesting that age verification laws will lead to a spike in identity theft and identity fraud. NetChoice goes so far as to point to “the recent hack of an age verification system used in Australia to verify and store the information of adults accessing physical locations with age restrictions, such as bars;” the story in question makes no mention of age verification, and concerns a leak of membership data from a variety of country clubs and bowling clubs.

Finally, there is rhetorical value to NetChoice in blurring the lines of terminology that the age assurance industry has been careful to delineate. “Age verification systems require collecting and storing sensitive personal data, potentially including government-issued IDs or biometric information,” NetChoice’s objection says. This ignores the existence of facial age estimation (FAE) options that do not store biometrics or require identity documents. Document verification is a particular process tailored for higher-risk scenarios.

Consider how easily NetChoice’s argument could be altered while remaining factually sound: “social media platforms require collecting and storing sensitive personal data.”

Laws ‘stifle innovation’ by putting focus on compliance

If there is a genuine objection in NetChoice’s letter, it is the argument that “a one-size-fits-all government mandate” could “stifle innovation in this space and potentially reduce protections for Arizonan youth, as traffic shifts away from platforms operating in good faith and as companies focus on compliance rather than developing more effective, tailored solutions.”

If we have to do this, say the platforms, we want to be able to control it. “Compliance” is a nuisance; let us cook. Because, say the Metas and Xs of the world, we’re the good guys.

“NetChoice members remain committed to protecting minors online through empowering parents, educating users and working with policymakers to develop more effective and constitutional solutions to address concerns about underage access to sensitive content or services,” says the objection.

This week, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified in a Los Angeles court for what the BBC calls a “landmark social media addiction trial,” to defend against allegations that his platforms, Facebook and Instagram, target young users with intentionally addictive design features.

Article Topics

age verification  |  Arizona  |  biometric age estimation  |  legislation  |  Netchoice  |  social media