[upofadown]

>This bill applies to all "operating system providers", ...

Not really.

>...for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store.

So the OS has to provide an age signal to apps from a "covered application store" defined as:

e) (1) “Covered application store” means a publicly available internet website, software application, online service, or platform that distributes and facilitates the download of applications from third-party developers to users of a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing that can access a covered application store or can download an application.

(2) “Covered application store” does not mean an online service or platform that distributes extensions, plug-ins, add-ons, or other software applications that run exclusively within a separate host application.

So things like Windows, Android and iOS...

[rendaw]

It doesn't say "only if there's a covered application store present on the system". But maybe everyone in power will interpret this non-logically in exactly the right way that this doesn't become abusive.

[upofadown]

Laws are designed and intended to be reasonable. I think you are using an inappropriate form of logic here. The intent of the law is fairly obvious.

[al_borland]

Wouldn’t that classification apply to Linux package managers as well?

They are publicly available online services that distribute and facilitate the download of applications from third party developers to users of a general purpose computing device.

[upofadown]

That doesn't seem to be the intent for something like, say, Debian. How would that work anyway?

This would probably cover something like a Linux based Steam box, where there are different organizations providing applications.