Lawmakers across the United States are introducing a wave of age-verification and parental-consent laws aimed at protecting kids online. While well-intentioned, these state-by-state approaches create a confusing and costly patchwork for startups and independent developers. And as we have seen in other efforts to use age-verification methods, the very people these laws aim to protect often become more vulnerable to the harms they were meant to prevent. To help our members stay ahead, we’re breaking it down into two living guides that will be updated periodically:

    • The ABCs of Age Verification: Our part one directory helps developers make sense of state age-verification proposals through three lenses: awareness – which bills are emerging and where; burden – how broad, one-size-fits-all mandates fall on small teams; and clarity – a snapshot of overlapping and sometimes conflicting requirements across the United States.
    • The 1-2-3s of Age Verification Compliance: Our part two compliance guide outlines how to 1) understand requirements, 2) prepare systems, and 3) understand how to better stay compliant as rules take effect.

This overview is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, but together these resources aim to offer startups and small tech companies a clear path through the evolving landscape of age-verification laws. Let’s start with the ABCs: what they mean, why they matter, and where things stand across the states.

The ABCs: Awareness, Burden, and Clarity

    • Awareness: Every month, new bills emerge, some modeled on existing rules, others entirely novel. Knowing where each state stands is the first step to planning.
    • Burden: Broad, one-size-fits-all mandates often force developers to rebuild backend systems, store sensitive IDs, and absorb steep legal costs, challenges that fall hardest on small teams.
    • Clarity: With overlapping, sometimes contradictory requirements, clarity is essential. That’s why we’ve built this living directory, a running snapshot of where age verification legislation currently stands across the United States.

What’s at Stake

If every state develops its own age-verification law, and Congress advances competing federal frameworks at the same time, developers could soon face 50 different sets of rules, each with its own standards, timelines, and enforcement mechanisms. For small tech, that’s not just confusing; it’s unsustainable.

For our small tech members, this fragmented patchwork means higher compliance costs, conflicting technical requirements, and increased exposure to liability. It also risks creating direct conflicts with federal law, particularly the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which already establishes clear guidelines for protecting minors’ data. And even if Congress ultimately moves forward with federal legislation, the transition period (plus differences between proposals) could still force teams to build and rebuild compliance systems multiple times.

Most importantly, many of these proposals still fail to protect the very children they’re designed to help, pushing more age-assurance and consent workflows into the app ecosystem in ways that require collecting and handling more sensitive personal information. That increases, rather than reduces, the risk of data misuse or exposure, while draining limited engineering and legal resources away from building safer, better products.

State and Federal Directory (A- Z)

As of this latest edition, state policymakers have introduced at least 50 app store-focused age-verification laws, others have rumors of potential proposals, and the United States Congress has two active proposals in play as well. States with an asterisk next to them have adjourned their legislative sessions for the year. However, we expect many of the proposed bills to be introduced again next year. At the federal level, these bills are active until January 3, 2027.

Keeping up with the patchwork of proposals can be challenging, especially as bills move through the legislative process at different speeds and in different forms. Below, we break down each state and federal proposal, where it currently stands in the legislative process, and what it could mean for startups and small tech innovators navigating new compliance requirements. As you review the tracker, note that a bill marked Introduced has been formally filed but has not yet advanced, In Committee means lawmakers are actively reviewing or revising it, Crossed Over means it has passed one legislative chamber and moved to the next, Enacted means it has become law, and Dead means it is not moving this session but can be reintroduced at another time.

Having trouble keeping track? No worries. Below, we outline the key details of each state’s bill, the two federal proposals, and what they mean for startups and small tech innovators navigating new compliance requirements. Learn more about five bills that have become law in the 1-2-3s of Age Verification here. 

*Alabama: Dead – HB 219 & SB 172; Enacted – HB 161
While the bills are not going to move forward this session, if they are reintroduced at another time they would require app stores to verify age and obtain verifiable parental consent for minors before downloads or purchases, and would require developers to use age and consent signals to manage age-appropriate access.

Learn more about the enforcement path of HB 161 in the 1-2-3s of Age Verification here.

Small Tech Impact if Reintroduced: Alabama’s competing frameworks would force small teams into new age-signal integrations and re-consent workflows, increasing release friction and liability risk. Even if app stores provide an age signal, developers would still face new integration work, gating logic, documentation, and liability risk, especially when shipping nationally across states with conflicting verification, consent, and enforcement models.

Alaska: In Committee – HB 46
Would establish new obligations for app stores to verify users’ ages, receive verifiable parental consent, and provide clearer age ratings and content descriptions tied to defined age categories. The proposal also contemplates parent-facing controls and oversight tools and would be enforced by the Department of Law.

Small Tech Impact: This proposal would introduce significant new compliance expectations for developers alongside app store requirements, including building parental-control features such as time restrictions and usage metrics. Because the bill references a January 1, 2026, effective date that has already passed, developers would face added uncertainty around timelines and implementation expectations.

Arizona: Introduced – HB 2920
Would require app stores to verify age and obtain verifiable parental consent for minors before downloads or in-app purchases, and would require developers to use age and consent signals to enforce age-related restrictions. The bill also ties “significant changes” to renewed parental consent and allows enforcement by the Attorney General and private lawsuits.

Small Tech Impact: This proposal would add recurring compliance and release friction for small teams by tying routine updates and purchases to age verification and re-consent triggers, while increasing liability through both AG enforcement and private lawsuits. This compounds the patchwork burden for developers shipping across states.

California: Enacted – AB 1043; Passed the Assembly – AB 1856
Learn more about the enforcement path of AB 1043 in the 1-2-3s of Age Verification here.

AB 1856 would expand AB 1043’s age signal requirements to include browsers and websites, in addition to apps. Operating system providers would have to collect age or birth date information from the primary user of a device and generate a signal showing their age bracket. A developer or internet website operator would have to request signals when a user downloads and launches an application or accesses an internet website. It also amends AB 1043 to exclude software components that are not offered as stand-alone applications.

Small Tech Impact: This bill would extend age assurance requirements to browsers and websites, pulling small web operators into scope. The resulting integration, compliance, and data governance requirements could increase operational complexity and costs for smaller teams.

*Colorado: Enacted – SB 051
Learn more about the enforcement path of SB 051 in the 1-2-3’s of Age Verification here.

*Florida: Dead –  S 1722
While the bill is not going to move forward this session, if this bill is reintroduced at another time it would require app stores to verify users’ ages and obtain parental consent for minors before downloads or purchases, and would require renewed consent when an app is significantly changed. It also requires app stores to share age category and consent signals with developers and requires developers to use those signals to enforce age-related restrictions. It would be enforced as an unfair and deceptive trade practice and includes a private right of action.

Small Tech Impact if Reintroduced: These proposals would create ongoing compliance and release friction for small teams by tying updates and monetization to consent triggers, while increasing liability risk through both state enforcement and lawsuits.

*Georgia: Dead – SB 467
While the bill is not going to move forward this session, if this bill is reintroduced at another time it would require app stores to verify users’ ages and, for minors, link accounts to a parent account, and obtain parental consent before downloads or purchases, with renewed consent in certain cases and a mechanism to withdraw consent. It also requires sharing age category and consent signals with developers and treats violations as deceptive business practices enforceable by the Attorney General.

Small Tech Impact if Reintroduced: These proposals would add new age-signal and consent dependencies to app distribution and updates, increasing release friction and compliance risk for small teams shipping in Georgia.

*Hawaii: Dead – SB 1542
While the bill is not going to move forward this session, if this bill is reintroduced at another time it would require app store providers to verify users’ ages and assign age categories; obtain verifiable parental consent before allowing minors to use an app store or download, purchase, or use apps; and give parents tools to block unsuitable apps, set content filters, and apply usage limits. The bill would also establish age verification and parental-consent requirements for certain app developers.

Small Tech Impact if Reintroduced: This bill would push developer teams to integrate age-category and consent workflows and ship parent-facing controls (like time restrictions), creating added product work and compliance complexity.

*Iowa: Dead – SF 2197

While the bill is not going to move forward this session, if this bill is reintroduced at another time it would require app stores to verify users’ ages at account creation and, for minors, link accounts to a parent account and obtain verifiable parental consent before downloads or purchases, with renewed consent tied to significant app changes and a process for revoking consent. It would also require app stores to share age category and consent status with developers, and includes enforcement under consumer fraud rules, with Attorney General enforcement and a private right of action.

Small Tech Impact if Reintroduced: This proposal would add ongoing consent and update triggers that can slow releases and increase compliance overhead for small teams, while expanding liability exposure through both state enforcement and lawsuits.

Illinois: Passed by the Legislature – HB 5511; Dead – HB 3304; HB 4140; SB 2037; SB 3977
Illinois was considering several bills built around a digital age signal framework for online services. While HB 3304, 4140, and SB 2037 will not move forward this session, if they are reintroduced at another time, they would require specified manufacturers, at device activation, to determine or estimate the age of the device’s primary user and provide websites, apps, app stores, and online services with a digital age signal. HB 4140 and SB 2037 would take a similar approach by requiring specified operating system providers to provide that signal. HB 5511, the House version of SB 3977, goes further by creating the Children’s Online Social Media Safety Act, which pairs account-setup age signaling and API-based transmission with additional obligations on covered platforms related to minors’ online experiences. The bills limit how data collected under the Act may be used, establish enforcement through the state Attorney General, and impose requirements on services that are (1) used by minors and (2) intended to enable social interaction by posting content, constructing profiles, and generating lists of followers.

Small Tech Impact: These bills would add new age assurance, data handling, and compliance obligations for covered app developers, online services, and platform operators. The broader social media safety bills could also create additional product-design and operational requirements for covered platforms, increasing compliance complexity for smaller teams.

*Kansas: Dead – SB 372 and SB 157
While the bills will not move forward this session, if they are reintroduced at another time they would require app stores to verify users’ ages and, for minors, link accounts to a parent account and obtain verifiable parental consent before downloads or purchases. It also requires sharing age category and consent status with developers, with renewed-consent triggers tied to significant app changes, and is enforced under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act with Attorney General enforcement and a private right of action.

Small Tech Impact if Reintroduced: These bills would have created recurring consent and update triggers that can slow releases and increase compliance overhead for small teams, while expanding liability exposure through both state enforcement and lawsuits.

Kentucky: Dead – HB 632
While the bill will not move forward this session, if it is reintroduced at another time it would require app store providers to verify users’ ages, obtain verifiable parental consent for minor accounts, notify users and parents of significant app changes, share age and consent status with developers, and protect age verification data. Developers would be required to rely on app store-provided age and consent information and notify app stores of significant changes, while both app stores and developers would be prohibited from misrepresenting parental consent disclosures. The Office of Consumer Protection within the Attorney General’s Office would establish age verification standards, and violations would be treated as deceptive trade practices. The bill also creates a private right of action for parents and guardians, while providing a safe harbor for compliant developers.

Small Tech Impact if Reintroduced: This bill will shift significant age-verification and parental-consent responsibilities onto app stores, but developers would still face new compliance obligations tied to consent status, app updates, disclosures, and coordination with app store systems. While the developer safe harbor may reduce liability risk, the private right of action and significant-change notification requirements would still impose legal and operational burdens on small app teams.

Louisiana: Dead – SB 503; Enacted – HB 570 and HB 997

Would create new requirements for minors’ use of apps and app store-based age assurance. HB 977 requires covered app stores to verify users’ ages, obtain verifiable parental consent for minors to download, access, purchase, or make in-app purchases, and share age and consent status with developers. Developers would need to verify that status through the app store and notify stores of significant app changes that may require renewed consent. While the bill will not move forward this session, if reintroduced at another time, SB 503 would require app distribution providers to collect and reasonably verify age categories, share age signals with developers when authorized, and require covered app developers to disclose intended audiences, provide parental controls, restrict minors’ access to certain adult-oriented features, and avoid personalized ads to minors. Both bills would be enforced by the Attorney General.

Learn more about the enforcement path of HB 570 and HB 997 in the 1-2-3s of Age Verification here.

Small Tech Impact: Developers would face new compliance duties around age and consent checks, app change notifications, parental controls, audience disclosures, and ad restrictions. These requirements could slow updates, affect monetization, and increase coordination burdens for small app teams.

*Maryland: Dead – HB 1179
While the bill will not move forward this session, if it is reintroduced at another time it would create the Consumer Protection – Application Store Accountability Act, requiring app stores to verify users’ ages and obtain verifiable parental consent before minors could download, purchase, or make in-app purchases. The bill also requires renewed consent after significant app changes, including changes to age ratings or the addition of in-app purchases or ads, and places transparency and data protection obligations on both app stores and developers. Violations would be treated as unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices.

Small Tech Impact if Reintroduced: Developers will face new duties around disclosures, data protection, significant-change notifications, and coordination with app stores. Renewed-consent triggers may slow updates and increased compliance costs for small teams.

Michigan: Both in Committee – HB 4429 & SB 0284
HB 4429 and SB 0284 are companion bills that advance the same Digital Age Assurance Act approach. Covers devices, operating systems, and app stores. Would require an age estimate during device setup and would transmit a “digital age signal” to apps and websites. Parental consent would be required for users under 16, and apps must use this signal to filter or restrict mature content. Enforcement rests solely with the Attorney General.

Small Tech Impact: These proposals would be complex to implement, forcing even small teams to rebuild authentication systems and content filters to comply with new device-level verification frameworks.

*Mississippi: Dead – HB 708
While the bill will not move forward this session, if it is reintroduced at another time it would require app stores to verify users’ ages at account creation and obtain verifiable parental consent for minors before downloads or purchases, with age category and consent signals shared to developers for enforcement. It also would set state standards for verification methods and included Attorney General enforcement and a private right of action.

Small Tech Impact if Reintroduced: Even though it failed, the bill reflects the same app store–driven consent model spreading across states, reinforcing the patchwork compliance risk for small teams. We will likely see a similar model introduced in the next session.

New Hampshire: Both Dead – SB 648; HB 1658
HB 1658 and SB 648 would take two different approaches to age verification in New Hampshire. While the bill will not move forward this session, if it is reintroduced at another time HB 1658 would focus on app stores, requiring age verification at account creation, minor account linked to a parent account, and verifiable parental consent before minors can download apps or make purchases (including in-app purchases). SB 648 focuses on commercial websites and applications that publish or distribute more than one-third material harmful to minors, requiring age verification to confirm users are 18+ and prohibiting retention of personal data used for verification. Both bills would be enforced by the Attorney General, and SB 648 would also create a private right of action. Both would have taken effect January 1, 2027.

Small Tech Impact: With HB 1658 no longer moving, the primary impact would come from SB 648’s age-gating and data-handling requirements for covered websites and applications, which could create new compliance and litigation risk for small teams operating content-based digital services, particularly given the bill’s private right of action.

New Jersey: Dead – S 4669
While the bill will not move forward this session, if it is reintroduced at another time it would require app stores to verify a New Jersey user’s age category at account creation and, for minors, link the account to a parent account and obtain verifiable parental consent before allowing app downloads, purchases, or in-app purchases. The bill would also require app stores and developers to coordinate on “significant changes,” including renewed parental consent where applicable, and would be enforced through the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and a private right of action.

Small Tech Impact if Reintroduced: This proposal would push developers to integrate with app store age- and consent-signals and manage “significant change” re-consent flows, increasing compliance overhead and liability exposure for small teams.

New York: In Committee – A 06549, A 08893,& S 08102
A 06549 would require operators of “covered platforms” to conduct age verification to determine whether a user is a covered minor (under 18) and apply default privacy settings for covered minors, including parental approval for certain activity related to a covered minor’s account. A08893 and S08102 are companion bills that would require manufacturers of internet-enabled devices to conduct commercially reasonable age assurance at activation (not solely self-reported) and, when a user is a covered minor (under 18), send a real-time API signal to websites, online services, and applications on the device indicating the user is a minor. Would also require deleting age-verification data after use. Enforced by the state’s Attorney General (no private right of action) and would take effect one year after becoming law.

Small Tech Impact: These proposals would push developers to build around both a platform-level age-verification/default settings model and a device-level “covered minor” signal, adding integration work and compliance overhead for small teams shipping in New York.

Ohio: Introduced – HB 226, HB 302, SB 167, SB 175, & SB 379

Ohio has introduced multiple overlapping proposals that would expand age-verification, parental-consent, and parental control requirements across app stores, developers, device manufacturers, and online platforms. HB 226 and SB 167 would primarily require app store-based parental consent and control mechanisms before users under 16 can download certain applications, while also imposing related obligations on device manufacturers and developers. HB 302 and SB 175 would take a broader approach by establishing age-verification and parental-consent requirements for covered applications, app stores, operating system providers, and certain internet browsers/search engines, including restrictions tied to minors’ app experiences and advertising. SB 379 (Hailey’s Law) would apply similar requirements in the gaming context, layering age verification, parental consent, and notification obligations onto gaming platform providers and developers.

Small Tech Impact: These proposals would create multiple overlapping compliance regimes across app stores, apps, gaming platforms, devices, and browser environments, increasing implementation complexity for small teams. Developers could face uncertainty and added operational burden from broad coverage standards, parental consent workflows, ad restrictions, significant-change notifications, and differing obligations depending on product type or distribution channel.

Pennsylvania: In Committee – HB 1729
Would require online platforms to implement age verification to identify users under 18 and apply default privacy settings that limit minors’ interactions with non-connected users, including direct messaging, profile viewing, tagging, and financial transactions. For users under 13, it would require parental approval for new connections and financial transactions, and would be enforced by the state’s Attorney General. Bill would take effect 60 days after passage.

Small Tech Impact: This proposal would require platforms to build age-based default settings and parent-approval workflows, adding product and compliance lift for small teams, plus enforcement risk tied to age verification standards and civil penalties.

South Carolina: In Committee – H 3405
Would establish an App Store Accountability Act requiring app store providers to determine users’ age categories and obtain verifiable parental consent for minors, alongside clearer, prominently displayed age ratings and content descriptions. Directs the Department of Consumer Affairs to issue guidance and establish an advisory committee, and would be enforced by the Attorney General with a private right of action.

Small Tech Impact: This proposal would require developers to adapt to app store age- and consent-signals and ship parent-facing controls (including time restrictions), adding product work and compliance risk for small teams distributing in South Carolina. Because the bill references a January 1, 2026, effective date that has already passed, developers would face added uncertainty around timelines and implementation expectations if it advances.

*South Dakota: Dead – HB 1237 & HB 1275
While the bills will not move forward this session, if they are reintroduced at another time HB 1237 would require age verification across app stores and other online platforms and require parental consent for users under 16, with parent controls like time limits and supervision tools and HB 1275 would apply the app store accountability model, requiring app stores to verify age categories, obtain verifiable parental consent for minors before downloads or purchases, and share age and consent signals with developers.

Small Tech Impact if Reintroduced: These bills would advanced two different frameworks at once, leaving small teams could be forced to build both broader platform-wide age gating and app store consent integrations, increasing product lift and patchwork compliance risk.

*Tennessee: Deferred – SB 2263 & Dead – HB 2254
As introduced, HB 2254 and SB 2263 make a narrow administrative change to Tennessee’s consumer protection law by allowing the Attorney General’s consumer affairs division to submit its annual report electronically. Although the introduced text did not include youth online safety, app store, or age-assurance requirements, the bills were amended to serve as vehicles for app store age-verification and parental-consent language. The Senate Judiciary Committee voted to defer SB 2263, while the House Banking and Consumer Affairs Subcommittee tabled the bill and referred it to a study committee for after the session adjourns.

Small Tech Impact: As introduced, the bills would not create new obligations for app developers, app stores, or online services. Once amended to include app store age verification language, the impact on small developers will have generally resembled the impact caused by other states’ bills. The scope of developer obligations, data-sharing requirements, enforcement mechanisms, and whether the proposal includes private litigation risk will depend on the outcomes of the study.

Texas: Enacted
Learn more about the enforcement path of SB 2420 in the 1-2-3’s of Age Verification here.

Utah: Enacted – SB 142 & SB 498
Learn more about the enforcement path of SB 142 in the 1-2-3’s of Age Verification here.

*Virginia: Dead – HB 757 & SB 237
While the bills will not move forward this session, if they are reintroduced at another time they would require app stores to verify users’ age categories, obtain verifiable parental consent for minors, and share age and consent signals with developers. They also require developers to verify age within their apps, notify app stores of significant app changes, and provide parental consent disclosures for display in the app store, with enforcement by the Attorney General and a private right of action

Small Tech Impact if Reintroduced: This proposal adds new disclosure, verification, and “significant change” triggers that can slow releases and raise compliance costs for small teams, with added liability exposure from both state enforcement and lawsuits.

*Wisconsin: Dead – AB 962 & SB 937
Would require app stores to verify users’ age categories at account creation and re-verify existing accounts within a set window, with parental consent required for minors before downloads or purchases and renewed consent tied to significant app changes. It also requires app stores to share age category and consent status with developers and includes both state enforcement and a private right of action.

Small Tech Impact if Reintroduced: This proposal would add recurring verification and re-consent triggers that can slow releases and increase compliance overhead for small teams, with added liability exposure through both enforcement and lawsuits.

 

United States Congress: In Committee – HR 3149 / S 1586 & HR 6333 / S 4349
H.R. 3149 / S 1586 and H.R. 6333 / S 4349 would create nationwide age-verification and parental-consent requirements for app stores, requiring major app stores to verify users’ ages and share age-category and consent signals with developers before downloads or purchases. They would also add new developer-facing obligations tied to app changes and age-differentiated experiences, with enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission and preemption of state-level rules in this area.

Small Tech Impact: A federal patch doesn’t fix the core problem if it still forces broad, high-friction age verification and consent workflows into the app ecosystem. Small teams would face new compliance costs, product delays, and liability risk while collecting and handling more sensitive data in ways that can increase privacy and security exposure.

Moving Forward

We will continue to advocate for consistent, privacy-protective, innovation-friendly policies that align with existing compliance obligations, promote digital literacy, and empower parents without overwhelming developers. Are you a developer ACTivated by this issue? Reach out to Brad Simonich here for future activations and opportunities to get involved, and check out the 1-2-3s of Age Verification Compliance here!

The original version of this resource was published on November 18, 2025.