Testimony in Opposition to New Mexico House Bill 313: “Digital Age Verification Act”
Statement from:
Steven Greenhut, Western Region Director, R Street Institute
Opposition to House Bill 313: “Digital Age Verification Act”
February 18, 2025
New Mexico House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee
Dear Chair Ferrary and members of the committee,
My name is Steven Greenhut. I am Western region director for the R Street Institute, a free-market think tank that works on a variety of issues including tech-related ones. I am writing to oppose New Mexico House Bill 313, which would create a requirement for age-verification and parental-consent for app stores.
HB 313 and similar bills in other states are well-intentioned, but they suppose that the government is best able to manage how people use online and app-based services. At R Street, we believe that individuals – not government regulators – are best-suited to manage their own lives and raise their families. We also are concerned about issues of privacy.
Under the bill’s language, a device manufacturer must take “commercially reasonable and technically feasible steps” to “equip each device to determine or estimate the age of the device’s user or users upon initial activation.” It requires them to provide a digital signal to apps, websites and online services to confirm a minor’s age. It gives manufacturers of devices sold before the law’s implementation 90 days to come into compliance.
It also requires a device, operating system or app store manufacturer to gain the consent of a parent or guardian of children 16 years old or younger before downloading an application from an app store. The bill considers violations to be unfair trade practices and can lead to harsh penalties. It’s a priority for Attorney General Raúl Torrez, who also has filed a lawsuit against Meta accusing the social-media company of failing to protect children from online abuse and human trafficking.
We don’t believe that requiring age verification will do anything substantive to combat this serious problem. These are onerous requirements and essentially require everyone to provide personal information to the manufacturer before having access to an app. Furthermore, these provisions are unnecessary. For instance, Apple already provides an “ask to buy” system, which allows parents to review apps before the child downloads them. Google offers something similar.
It is left to the New Mexico Department of Justice to define what constitutes a “commercially reasonable and technically feasible” means of estimating a user’s age. Tech companies would essentially become the gatekeeper and would be required to collect and verify personal information for everybody.
In a brick-and-mortar equivalent, it would be like requiring the operators of a shopping center to collect everyone’s data upon entry – rather than requiring, say, individual tobacco or liquor stores to “card” the buyer of restricted products. We believe the best way to verify age is at the transaction of such products, not on the devices themselves. The devices are not the ones that provide direct age-dependent products.
The measure also seems likely to get tied up in the courts on constitutional grounds. That’s been the case with multiple age-verification laws across the country. The U.S. Supreme Court addressed that same basic issue regarding the 1996 Communications Decency Act. The unanimous court’s finding was the law’s “burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the act’s legitimate purposes.”
Yet this bill burdens all adults by providing device filters and forcing buyers to verify their age. Basically, it imposes a burden on all adults if they want to have uncensored internet access on their own devices. In a 2023 U.S. District Court decision placing an injunction on a similar law in California, the judge found that the law is “actually likely to exacerbate the problem by inducing covered businesses to require consumers, including children, to divulge additional personal information.” The case is still winding its way through the courts, but that statement echoes our concerns about these types of legislative efforts.
Practically speaking, parental consent also requires app stores to verify that the parent is the correct parent of the specific child. Government identification doesn’t provide this information. When parents and children do not share the same last name, it would essentially require the use of birth certificates or other very sensitive documents. Otherwise app stores would be liable for getting it wrong.
This imposes a massive compliance burden. App stores sell their products nationwide, so it imposes a burden if they must conform to a variety of different regulations in every state. Furthermore, the bill will provide parents with a false sense of security. There’s no substitute for parental supervision and involvement. No technology can automatically do that for them.
Anyone can lie on age-verification questions, so HB 313’s approach is to require tech companies to gather enormous amounts of personal information. Children are already facing serious harm with identity theft. Having to offer their Social Security numbers or other identifying information is a further risk. The top age and identity verifier for the biggest tech companies was already breached for over a year. That goes back to the California court’s determination that such laws can exacerbate the problem.
The bill would still allow several workarounds. For instance, minors could access such content via web browsers, gaming consoles or Smart TVs. App stores cannot regulate those platforms, despite the legislation’s requirement for providing a digital signal. Minors could still create fake parental accounts or use shared devices.
Government mandates on tech products always reduce market innovation. They often prove innovative. I remember those federal Do Not Call lists that haven’t worked to stop spam calls. By contrast, market responses such as cellphone company spam blockers have worked much better.
I’ve found an extensive list of readily available tools that parents can use to manage their kids’ devices. Passing laws that require systems to provide options that they largely already provide isn’t effective. Encouraging parents to use these tools is better than making government the gatekeeper.
Thank you for your time.
Best regards,
Steven Greenhut
Steven Greenhut
Western Region Director
R Street Institute
(909) 260-9836
sgreenhut@rstreet.org