This new "privacy" law will require that all operating system providers must start collecting your birth date every app you install will need to ask your OS provider for that information. It's whac...
Like in Wayland, a developer can use the xdg desktop utilities to send a Notification or start a Screencast if needed. If their service requires device based age verification, a call to something like DeviceAgeVerification could happen… and if the user hasn’t completed it or the desktop environment hasn’t implemented it, the requesting service could just not provide it’s content.
The California law sounds like it requiring the OS implement it for devices sold, where the alternative could be just that the service can’t serve it’s content if an age verification method isn’t available by the OS.
California’s Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043) (effective Jan. 1, 2027) requires operating system (OS) providers to implement age-verification, specifically asking users for their age/birthdate during setup to categorize them into one of four age brackets. This self-reported data will be used to restrict access to age-inappropriate content, with penalties for non-compliance reaching up to $7,500 per violation.
edit:
The actual text of the bill isn’t very long. I don’t like that the obligation is on the OS. They want an attestation or a verification of age, it doesn’t have to be completed by the OS. Why can’t Meta sell users their age verification software to run on the OS that other programs can call to comply with the law? I really haven’t considered it and this isn’t very serious.
New York Senate Bill S8102A goes further. It “requires manufacturers of internet-enabled devices to conduct age assurance” to check all users’ ages, and provide this info to “all websites, online services, online applications and mobile applications” – as well as app stores.
I didn’t realize it at first, but Pornhub has also been requesting device based age verification legislation.
The California law essentially allows a parent to create a child account on a device and gives a way for apps to query it.
I’m not sure what PH is asking for, but it doesn’t sound like the same thing.
I guess there is a distinction.
Like in Wayland, a developer can use the xdg desktop utilities to send a Notification or start a Screencast if needed. If their service requires device based age verification, a call to something like DeviceAgeVerification could happen… and if the user hasn’t completed it or the desktop environment hasn’t implemented it, the requesting service could just not provide it’s content.
The California law sounds like it requiring the OS implement it for devices sold, where the alternative could be just that the service can’t serve it’s content if an age verification method isn’t available by the OS.
edit:
The actual text of the bill isn’t very long. I don’t like that the obligation is on the OS. They want an attestation or a verification of age, it doesn’t have to be completed by the OS. Why can’t Meta sell users their age verification software to run on the OS that other programs can call to comply with the law? I really haven’t considered it and this isn’t very serious.
Nothing a VPN pointed to New York can’t fix.
Edit: for now
NY is next
https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/06/os_age_verification/
Ugh