Senator Lee Proposes Bill Mandating Age Verification for Google and Apple Accounts.

Senator Mike Lee’s App Store Accountability Act, framed as a measure to protect children from harmful online content, proposes a system of age verification and parental controls for app stores. While superficially appealing, the bill’s core premise—that app stores are rife with pornography accessible to minors—is fundamentally flawed. Major app stores like Apple’s App Store and Google Play already have stringent policies prohibiting sexually explicit content. Lee’s legislation, therefore, is not about banning porn from app stores, but rather about imposing a broader system of age verification and content control that has serious implications for privacy, free speech, and market competition. The bill’s true objective is to create a legal mechanism for parents to sue app stores for exposing minors to any content they deem harmful, including not only explicit material but also violent content and even direct messages. This expansive definition of harmful content, coupled with the threat of litigation, would compel app stores to implement draconian age verification measures to avoid lawsuits. This system would necessitate the collection and storage of vast amounts of sensitive personal information, creating significant privacy and data security risks. A data breach involving such information could have devastating consequences for users. Furthermore, the bill’s broad restrictions on access to apps based on age raise constitutional concerns. Limiting minors’ access to entire app stores due to the presence of some potentially inappropriate content is akin to banning them from a shopping mall because one store sells alcohol. Such restrictions infringe on minors’ First Amendment rights to access information and participate in online communities.

The proposed “safe harbor” provision, which shields app stores from liability if they implement specific age verification and parental control measures, would effectively solidify the dominance of large tech companies like Apple and Google. These costly requirements would create insurmountable barriers to entry for smaller app stores and developers, stifling competition and innovation. The burden of compliance would further extend to app developers, who would be required to incorporate age-based restrictions into their apps and potentially share sensitive user data with app stores. These requirements would disproportionately impact smaller developers, hindering their ability to compete and potentially leading to a less diverse app ecosystem.

Moreover, the practicality of Lee’s proposal is questionable. Users can bypass app store restrictions by downloading apps directly from developers’ websites or other third-party sources. The bill’s focus on app stores ignores the broader online landscape, where minors can access a wide range of content through web browsers and other platforms. This renders the legislation largely ineffective in achieving its stated goal of protecting children, while simultaneously imposing significant burdens on app stores, developers, and users.

The age verification mandate also has the potential to harm vulnerable minors. LGBTQ+ youth seeking support, teens seeking information about sexual health, or children experiencing abuse may rely on apps to access information and connect with communities that offer help and support. Requiring parental consent for app downloads could prevent these vulnerable minors from accessing vital resources.

Lee’s bill could be seen as a Trojan horse, using the guise of protecting children to advance a broader agenda of online censorship and control. The provision allowing lawsuits over exposure to direct messages, for instance, could pressure app stores to ban apps that allow minors to communicate directly with each other. This could have far-reaching consequences for social interaction and online communities. Future legislation or regulatory actions could further expand the scope of restrictions, potentially leading to the censorship of a wide range of online content.

The argument that “we have the technology to ensure age verification without ending anonymity online” is misleading. While some age verification methods may not require the direct disclosure of identity, they still involve the collection and storage of personal data, which poses privacy risks. Additionally, requiring age verification for access to online platforms and services undermines the principle of anonymity, which is essential for free speech and expression, particularly for vulnerable populations.

A less intrusive and more effective approach to protecting children online would be to empower parents with tools and resources to manage their children’s online activities. Rather than imposing blanket restrictions, parents should be given the ability to customize controls based on their children’s age, maturity level, and individual needs. This approach respects parental autonomy while avoiding the privacy and free speech concerns associated with government-mandated age verification.

Ultimately, Lee’s bill is a misguided attempt to address a problem that largely doesn’t exist. Its focus on app stores ignores the wider online ecosystem and its potential consequences for privacy, free speech, and market competition are significant. A more effective and less intrusive approach would focus on empowering parents with the tools and resources they need to manage their children’s online experiences while preserving the open and accessible nature of the internet.