Age verification laws has been one of the main focuses of the EFF lately. Notably, various U.S. states have introduced legislation that affect websites that are not necessarily “adult” content.
This alarming trend is already clear, with the growing creep of age verification bills filed in the first month of the 2025-2026 state legislative session. Consider these three bills:
Skincare:AB-728in California
Age verification just hit the skincare aisle! California’s AB-728 mandates age verification for anyone purchasing skin care products or cosmetics that contain certain chemicals like Vitamin A or alpha hydroxy acids. On the surface, this may seem harmless—who doesn’t want to ensure that minors are safe from harmful chemicals? But the real issue lies in the invasive surveillance it mandates. A person simply trying to buy face cream could be forced to submit sensitive personal data through “an age verification system,” creating a system of constant tracking and data collection for a product that should be innocuous.
Dating Apps:A3323in New York
Match made in heaven? Not without your government-issued ID. New York’s A3323 bill mandates that online dating services verify users’ age, identity, and location before allowing access to their platforms. The bill’s sweeping requirements introduce serious privacy concerns for all users. By forcing users to provide sensitive personal information—such as government-issued IDs and location data—the bill creates significant risks that this data could be misused, sold, or exposed through data breaches.
Dieting products:SB 5622in Washington State
Shed your privacy before you shed those pounds! Washington State’s SB 5622 takes aim at diet pills and dietary supplements by restricting their sale to anyone under 18. While the bill’s intention is to protect young people from potentially harmful dieting products, it misses the mark by overlooking the massive privacy risks associated with the age verification process for everyone else. To enforce this restriction, the bill requires intrusive personal data collection for purchasing diet pills in person or online, opening the door for sensitive information to be exploited.
Of course, there are valid arguments for mandating ID for some of these situations. That is, if you ignore the horrible track record that most websites have when protecting personal data.
Is age verification the “evil” thing, or is it how it is implemented. I am in favor of fully private age verification for things like dieting, dating, etc. purely because of the constant overexposure to internet and weird cultures children have access to.
I prefer something like privacy pass over not having these reasonable restrictions. Current legislation is definitely putting the cart before the horse though. They should first build public consensus, then implement tech, and then make it mandatory, instead of just trying to use this as a garb for surveillance legislation.
I can understand ID checks for substances that are harmful to children, since we already do that, but creating an entire age verification system for it seems pretty needless.
The root problem is the government treating young people like prisoners, robbing them of any choices and privacy. Helicopter parenting is one issue, but its even worse when the government does it.
Treating young adults like prisoners is the reason why they are more depressed and unhealthy than ever before, not skincare products.
Age verification is inherently evil IN MY OPINION. It cannot be the role of government to regulate access to information or that power will be abused.
For example you may be perfectly ok with the current government blocking access to dating apps for people under 18, however you may be less ok with a future government banning access to LGBTQ content or certain books for minors or heck all people under the age of 150.
But did I say “I want government to implement age restriction”? My assertion was simple, if there was a perfectly privacy preserving way to do age verification, then I would not be against it. The issue you highlight is also an implementation issue, not intent issue. The implementation can be based on consent of parents, consent of individual, etc. The intent is not inherently evil in my opinion.
That skin cream better be on a different higher orgasmic level if they’re going to lump it together with porn…
But seriously though, Vitamin A cosmetics can be a bit problematic but it should be held at the same level as alcohol. A simple good enough visual check is more than enough.
