A wave of state-level age verification mandates is sweeping across the United States, and the political pitch is almost always the same: protect children from harmful online content. The logic sounds simple. Kids shouldn’t access pornography or addictive social media feeds, so force websites and apps to verify every user’s age before granting entry. But the implementation details reveal something far more complex—and far more dangerous—than the campaign-trail rhetoric suggests. What’s being constructed, piece by piece and state by state, is a national identity verification infrastructure that threatens privacy, punishes open-source developers who can’t comply, and hands enormous power to a handful of commercial ID-checking companies. All while doing remarkably little to stop a determined teenager with a VPN.
That last point is where the entire edifice begins to crack. As The Verge recently laid out in sharp detail, the fundamental technical problem with geographically scoped age verification laws is that they are trivially easy to circumvent. A VPN—virtual private network—costs a few dollars a month, sometimes nothing at all, and allows any user to appear as though they’re browsing from a different state or country entirely. Teenagers, who are often more technically fluent than the legislators writing these bills, already know this. Some of them learned it to access geo-restricted video games. Now they’ll use the same trick to bypass age gates on adult content or social media platforms. The enforcement mechanism, in other words, is a sieve.
And yet the laws keep coming.
Texas, Louisiana, Virginia, Utah, and more than a dozen other states have passed or advanced age verification requirements in some form. California’s AB 1043, one of the most aggressive proposals, would require any “covered operator” to verify the age of users before allowing access to content deemed harmful to minors. The bill sets a 2027 compliance deadline and defines its scope so broadly that it could ensnare not just major platforms but also independent developers, small app makers, and even Linux distribution maintainers who package web browsers or other software capable of accessing restricted content. As WebProNews reported, the bill’s language doesn’t carve out exceptions for open-source projects, raising the specter of volunteer-run software organizations being held legally responsible for failing to implement commercial age-checking systems they have no resources to deploy.
The California bill is not an outlier. It’s a template. Illinois introduced SB 3977, which WebProNews described as “the Midwest’s quiet attempt to build an age-gating machine that could swallow open-source software whole.” The bill’s definitions of covered platforms and operators are broad enough to capture virtually any software that connects to the internet and could theoretically display content a minor shouldn’t see. Colorado, to its credit, has at least considered exempting open-source software from its own age verification mandate—a recognition, as WebProNews noted, that applying commercial compliance obligations to volunteer-maintained projects is both impractical and constitutionally suspect.
But exemptions for open-source are the exception, not the rule. Most bills treat all software identically, regardless of whether it’s produced by a Fortune 500 company or a solo developer in a basement.
The deeper question—the one that most state legislators seem uninterested in confronting—is who actually benefits from this infrastructure. The answer, increasingly, is the commercial identity verification industry and the large technology platforms that stand to gain from a compliance regime so expensive and complex that only they can afford to meet it. System76, the Linux hardware company, made this argument explicitly when it publicly opposed age verification mandates, calling them a “liability dodge” for Big Tech dressed up as child safety legislation. The company’s argument: large platforms like Meta and Google have spent years under fire for algorithmically promoting harmful content to minors. Rather than accept responsibility for their own design choices, these companies are quietly supportive of age verification mandates that shift the compliance burden onto the broader internet—including competitors, small businesses, and open-source projects—while simultaneously creating a new data pipeline that feeds directly into their existing identity systems.
That’s not paranoia. It’s pattern recognition.
Consider how age verification actually works in practice. The most common methods involve either uploading a government-issued ID, submitting to a facial age-estimation scan, or authenticating through a third-party identity service. Each of these approaches creates a record. Someone, somewhere, now knows that a specific individual attempted to access a specific category of content at a specific time. The privacy implications are staggering. Even if the verification provider promises to delete records immediately—and many don’t make that promise—the mere act of collecting this data creates an irresistible target for hackers, subpoena-happy prosecutors, and future administrations with different ideas about what constitutes acceptable speech.
As WebProNews has extensively documented, the age verification push is effectively constructing a surveillance infrastructure under the banner of child protection. The framing is politically potent—no legislator wants to be seen as opposing child safety—but the technical reality is that these systems will primarily affect law-abiding adults who comply with the verification process, not minors who route around it with freely available tools.
The Verge’s analysis drives this point home with uncomfortable clarity. The publication noted that VPN usage among teenagers is already widespread and growing, driven by everything from accessing region-locked streaming content to bypassing school network filters. Adding age-gated websites to the list of things a VPN can unlock is not a technological leap. It’s a trivial extension of existing behavior. The kids these laws are supposed to protect are precisely the demographic most likely to know how to defeat them.
So what are these laws actually accomplishing?
They’re creating a compliance moat around the open internet. Small publishers, independent platforms, and open-source projects face an impossible choice: implement expensive age verification systems, geo-block users from states with mandates, or shut down entirely. Meanwhile, the largest platforms—which already collect vast amounts of user data and have the engineering teams to build or integrate verification systems—absorb the cost as a manageable line item. The net effect is to consolidate the internet further around a handful of dominant players, the very companies whose practices toward minors sparked the political backlash in the first place.
The constitutional questions are equally fraught. The First Amendment has long been understood to protect the right to access information anonymously. Age verification mandates, by requiring users to identify themselves before accessing lawful content, collide directly with this principle. Courts have already begun weighing in. A federal judge blocked enforcement of Texas’s age verification law in 2024, citing First Amendment concerns, before the Fifth Circuit reversed on appeal. The legal battles are far from settled, and the Supreme Court may ultimately have to decide whether mandatory digital ID checks pass constitutional muster.
There’s also the question of what counts as content “harmful to minors.” The phrase is doing enormous work in these statutes, and its boundaries are far from clear. Pornography is the obvious target, but the definitions in many bills extend to content that is “violent,” “sexually suggestive,” or that promotes “self-harm”—categories broad enough to encompass news reporting, health information, literary works, and political speech. Once the verification infrastructure exists, expanding the list of content that requires an ID check is a matter of legislative amendment, not technological overhaul. The ratchet only turns one way.
WebProNews warned that California’s AB 1043 effectively forces a surveillance mandate on every developer, “including the ones who can’t comply.” That framing captures the core absurdity of the current approach. A solo developer maintaining a free, open-source web browser or content management system has no mechanism to verify a user’s age, no legal team to interpret fifty different state mandates, and no budget to integrate with commercial ID verification providers. The law treats them identically to Google.
The international context matters too. The United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act includes age verification provisions, and Australia has moved toward banning social media for users under 16. The European Union’s Digital Services Act takes a different approach, focusing on platform accountability rather than user-level identity checks. But the American version of age verification is uniquely fragmented—a patchwork of state laws with different definitions, different enforcement mechanisms, and different exemptions, all layered on top of a federal system that has so far declined to set a uniform standard.
This fragmentation is itself a problem. A website operator attempting to comply with age verification laws in Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, California, Illinois, and Colorado simultaneously faces a compliance nightmare. Each state’s law has different triggers, different definitions of covered content, and different verification methods deemed acceptable. The practical result is that many smaller operators will simply block access from those states entirely, reducing the availability of lawful content for adults while doing nothing to prevent minors from using a VPN to appear as though they’re in an unregulated jurisdiction.
And the VPN point cannot be overstated. It is the central technical fact that undermines the entire regulatory project. Every age verification law currently on the books or under consideration is geographically scoped. Every single one can be defeated by a free browser extension. This isn’t a hypothetical vulnerability. It is a fundamental architectural flaw that no amount of legislative drafting can fix without also banning or restricting VPN usage—a step that would raise even more severe constitutional and practical objections.
Some proponents argue that age verification doesn’t need to be perfect to be effective. They compare it to checking IDs at the door of a bar: not every fake ID gets caught, but the friction deters most underage drinkers. The analogy breaks down quickly. Walking into a bar with a fake ID requires physical presence, social confidence, and a convincing document. Enabling a VPN requires clicking a button. The friction differential is orders of magnitude. And unlike a bouncer, a VPN leaves no trace that the user circumvented anything.
The political dynamics driving these bills are worth examining. Child safety is one of the few remaining bipartisan issues in American politics. Legislators on both sides of the aisle compete to appear toughest on protecting kids online. Tech companies, wary of more direct regulation of their algorithms and business models, have in many cases tacitly supported age verification as a less threatening alternative. It’s a form of regulatory capture disguised as compromise: instead of being forced to change how they design addictive products, platforms accept a verification requirement that they can easily meet and that burdens their smaller competitors disproportionately.
WebProNews characterized California’s 2027 deadline as a potential reshaping of the tech industry “from the inside out.” That may be right, but not in the way the bill’s sponsors intend. The reshaping won’t make children safer. It will make the internet smaller, more surveilled, and more dominated by incumbents who can afford the cost of compliance. Open-source projects will face existential legal risk. Independent publishers will geo-block or shut down. Adults will hand over their government IDs to access legal content. And teenagers will keep using VPNs.
There are better approaches. Device-level parental controls, already built into every major operating system, give parents direct authority over what their children can access without requiring every adult on the internet to prove their age. Platform accountability measures—requiring companies to audit and disclose how their algorithms affect minors—address the actual source of harm rather than treating the symptom. Education programs that teach digital literacy equip young people to make better choices rather than relying on technical barriers they can easily circumvent.
None of these alternatives are as politically satisfying as an age verification mandate. They don’t produce a bill signing photo or a press release about “cracking down” on Big Tech. But they have the advantage of actually working—or at least of not creating a national identity verification infrastructure with no off switch and no expiration date.
The age verification movement is accelerating. More states will pass more bills. More compliance deadlines will be set. More court challenges will be filed. And more teenagers will download VPNs. The question isn’t whether these laws will protect children. The evidence strongly suggests they won’t. The question is how much collateral damage they’ll inflict on privacy, free expression, and the open internet before legislators admit what the technology has been telling them all along: you can’t solve a design problem with an ID check.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication