On October 13, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law the Digital Age Assurance Act (AB-1043) (the “Act”), which introduces new requirements for age verification in software applications. The operative date is January 1, 2027.
The Act applies to the following entities:
- Operating System Providers: An operating system provider is a person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general-purpose computing device.
- Covered Application Stores: A covered application store is any publicly available internet website, software application, online service, or platform that distributes and facilitates the download of applications from third-party developers to users of a computer, a mobile device, or any other general-purpose computing device that can access a covered application store or can download an application. Covered application stores do not include platforms that distribute extensions, plug-ins, add-ons, or other software applications that run exclusively within a separate host application.
- Application Developers: A developer is a person who owns, maintains, or controls an application. An application means a software application that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, a mobile device, or any other general-purpose computing device that can access a covered application store or download an application.
The Act does not apply to broadband internet access or telecommunications services, or the delivery or use of physical products. There is no liability for actions of persons other than the primary user.
The Act contains key requirements, including:
- Operating System Providers Must Provide an Accessible Interface at Account Setup for Age Verification and Provide Age Bracket Signals Upon Developer’s Request. Operating system providers must provide an accessible interface at account setup requiring account holders to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the device’s primary user. This is to provide a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in covered application stores. Operating system providers must also (1) provide, upon a developer’s request, a digital signal specifying the user’s age bracket, (2) minimize data sharing to only what is necessary for compliance with the Act, and (3) not share signal information with a third party for a purpose not required by the Act.
- Operating System Providers and Covered Application Stores Must Comply with Nondiscrimination Provisions. Operating system providers and covered application stores must comply with the Act in a nondiscriminatory manner, including by (1) imposing at least the same restrictions and obligations on their own applications and application distribution as they do on those from third-party applications or application distributors and (2) not using data collected from a third party in the course of compliance with the Act to compete against that third party, give the covered application store’s services preference relative to those of a third party, or to otherwise use the data in an anticompetitive manner.
- Application Developers Must Request an Age Bracket Signal When the Application Is Downloaded and Launched. Application developers must request an age bracket signal with respect to a particular user from operating system providers or covered application stores when the application is downloaded and launched. A developer who receives a signal is deemed to have actual knowledge of the user’s age range, even if the developer willfully disregards the signal. Developers must not willfully disregard clear and convincing information otherwise available that indicates that a user’s age is different than the age bracket data indicated by a signal provided by an operating system provider or a covered application store. Developers must not (1) request more information than necessary for compliance with the Act or (2) share the signal with a third party for a purpose not required by the Act.
The Act provides for key compliance dates as follows:
- For devices where account setup was completed prior to January 1, 2027, operating system providers must, before July 1, 2027, provide an accessible interface enabling the account holder to indicate the user’s birth date, age, or both.
- For applications last updated on or after January 1, 2026, and downloaded to devices before January 1, 2027, where the developer has not requested a signal with respect to the user of the device on which the application was downloaded, developers must, before July 1, 2027, request a signal regarding the user’s age bracket from a covered application store.
Penalties for noncompliance include up to $2,500 per affected child for negligent violations and up to $7,500 for intentional violations. The Act provides for enforcement by the California Attorney General and does not contain a private right of action.
Search
Recent Posts
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- Age Appropriate Design Code
- Age Verification
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence
- Audit
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Consumer Rights
- Cookies
- COPPA
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPPA
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cross-Border Data Transfer
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Breach
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Protection Officer
- Data Security
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Deceptive Trade Practices
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Defense
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- Design
- Digital Markets Act
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DORA
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Electronic Protected Health Information
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- Financial Data
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Geolocation Data
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- HIPAA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- International Commissioners Office
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- Iowa
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Large Language Model
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Louisiana
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Meta
- Mexico
- Michigan
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Mobile
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- NEDPA
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- North Korea
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OCPA
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Online Behavioral Advertising
- Online Privacy
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Notice
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Profiling
- Protected Health Information
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk Assessment
- Risk-Based Approach
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Salesforce
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott Kimpel
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Sensitive Data
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- States Attorney General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code