[heavyset_go]

As with all age verification bills, the fact that developers are opened up to liability if children access content they're not "supposed to" means that facial scans and ID checks will be implemented as they currently are everywhere.

From the bill:

> (3) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a developer shall treat a signal received pursuant to this title as the primary indicator of a user’s age range for purposes of determining the user’s age.

> (B) If a developer has internal clear and convincing information that a user’s age is different than the age indicated by a signal received pursuant to this title, the developer shall use that information as the primary indicator of the user’s age.

It's not enough to just accept the age signal, you can still be liable if you have reason to believe someone is underage based on other information.

The cheapest and easiest way to minimize that liability is with face scans and ID checks. That way you, as a developer, know that your users won't bankrupt you.

[quails8mydog]

Sounds like if the OS doesn't track anything else about the user, then it won't receive any other signals and will just use whatever was typed in at account creation.

If websites accept this as age verification it could provide a very easy way to bypass it.

In fact, looking at it again, point B specifically says if the "developer" has information rather than the "system" has information. So really sounds like if the developer isn't collecting logs that they can access themselves this wouldn't apply to them.

[tzs]

The cheapest and easiest way to minimize liability is not to collect any information not needed to actually provide the service you are providing.