Law professor Eric Goldman said the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (CAADCA), which mandates age verification to differentiate between child and adult users online, is veiled content censorship under the guise of protecting minors' privacy.
The CAADCA aims to require businesses to verify the ages of online visitors to distinguish between adults and children, implementing stringent protections for children. However, Goldman argues these protections are so burdensome that many businesses would choose to blacklist children rather than comply, potentially harming children's digital access and education.
“The AADC frames itself a ‘privacy’ law, but that’s always been a gross lie. It is and always has been about content censorship,” Goldman says.
Eric Goldman
| Eric Goldman, CC BY-SA 2.0
Several critics have suggested these laws would have a negative impact on education and information access.
According to a report by the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.), child online safety laws may inadvertently increase surveillance and limit free speech online. Age verification requirements imposed by these laws could limit internet freedom and hinder access to content for adults, especially those from marginalized communities.
Critics also say that no privacy-preserving method exists to confirm if an underage user is indeed underage, complicating compliance without invading privacy.
The law has also raised other constitutional issues beyond privacy and speech concerns.
NetChoice, an internet trade association advocating for free enterprise and free expression online, says that the CAADCA oversteps by regulating activities beyond California, conflicting with the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause. Moreover, it challenges the Supremacy Clause, as it imposes user data handling requirements on websites for users under 18, contradicting the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA).
Goldman argues that protecting children online requires a comprehensive approach involving parents, schools, experts, regulators, and children themselves to discuss various options and trade-offs, but regulators have not adequately undertaken this crucial work. “Instead, they have relied on simplistic regulatory approaches like requiring businesses to sort kids from adults–a tool that remains clearly unconstitutional,” he said.