Posted by nothrowaways 1 day ago
1: https://www.tomshardware.com/software/operating-systems/cali...
> (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.
Turns out the age signal is not enough. Liability-wise, you'll probably be doing face and/or ID scans, too, even if the law doesn't explicitly call for it.
Developers will just implement the strictest state's censorship and age verification schemes for everyone, which has already happened. My state has no age verification laws, yet platforms, and even Android itself, are trying to get me to scan my face and dox myself to use them. I can't even look at spicy tweets online without verifying my age with the X app, they're censored for my own protection.
It is narrower than that. It only applies to accounts whose user is a child and is the primary user of the device.
See section 1798.500 (i) which says [1]:
(i) “User” means a child that is the primary user of the device.
The real meat of the law is requiring websites and applications to comply with this signal. Which would be one good reason why there are so many categories of seeming little difference. This then gives them the opportunity to fine and harass developers out of business for the most minor of infractions or instances of mislabeling.
But, the state doesn’t actually have an incentive to fine and harass their tax base out of business. I don’t think they made it over-complicated on purpose, I think lawmakers just over-estimate our capacity to understand laws.
They're suing Florida residents with no ties to California for linking to pictures of guns on the internet.
They will likely lose, but the goal is not to win, it's to score points with their political base and maybe bankrupt the defendants with legal fees.
Or the goal might be to lose, but to establish some precedent that will hamper states like Texas that have tried similar things with abortion providers.