If passed, the bill would apply across the U.S., unlike the state-level laws already around.

From the press release [my emphasis]:

Require operating system developers like Apple and Google to verify users’ ages when setting up a new device, rather than relying on self-reported ages.

cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/25834609

The U.S. has been quietly building up a set of state-level laws that push operating system providers into the age verification plague.

California’s AB 1043, signed in October 2025, requires OS providers to collect age data at account setup and pipe it to apps through a real-time API. It kicks in on January 1, 2027.

Colorado is working on something nearly identical. SB26-051 (which we covered when it was still a proposal) passed the state Senate 28-7 on March 3, 2026, and is now waiting on a House vote to become law there too.

However, these are just state-level laws. A new federal bill, H.R.8250, introduced on April 13, 2026, by Rep. Josh Gottheimer, with Rep. Elise M. Stefanik signing on as cosponsor, has us intrigued.

  • taiyang@lemmy.world
    1·
    3 hours ago

    I hope this just manifests as a transition from “I lied about my age to steam, Minecraft and pornhub” to “I let my OS lie about my age to steam, Minecraft and pornhub.”

    But I get the fear that they’re going to take it too far and require ID, especially since the feds are a thousand times worse than the state governments in question.

    • stravanasu@lemmy.caOP
      3·
      3 hours ago

      From the press release [my emphasis]:

      Require operating system developers like Apple and Google to verify users’ ages when setting up a new device, rather than relying on self-reported ages.

      • taiyang@lemmy.world
        2·
        1 hour ago

        Yes, I read that but how? We 100% should be more concerned with fed implementation than what states were doing, as I’m betting it’s going to be as stupid as UKs approach to app based verification.

        I’m not sure they could even do that in a reasonable way when there are use cases like offline installs, no cameras, etc, but given Windows requires hoops to jump to avoid getting an MS account, that’s probably not going to be a concern of theirs (as Congress is exceptionally inept). At least the CA law seems to consider that, given it’s just self report.

        • stravanasu@lemmy.caOP
          2·
          1 hour ago

          Very true:

          But when technologists tell policymakers this, they tell us that they have every confidence in our ingenuity, and also, they can’t be certain we’re not telling a Zuck-style fable about how the stuff we merely disprefer is actually impossible. They tell us to NERD HARDER!

          NERD HARDER! is the answer every time a politician gets a technological idée-fixe about how to solve a social problem by creating a technology that can’t exist.

          https://pluralistic.net/2025/08/14/bellovin/#wont-someone-think-of-the-cryptographers

          • taiyang@lemmy.world
            2·
            42 minutes ago

            That’s depressing, lol. Well, my guess is it won’t be 100% enforceable because there will always be computers with root access, and it won’t matter while Windows and Mac capitulate and 95% of the market complies because they’re used to signing up for shit. It might be illegal at the user level but not enforceable, much like a lot of other things.

            Silver lining, another generation of horny teens will learn to love Linux the same way I was pushed into rooted devices at a young age.