https://csa-scientist-open-letter.org/ageverif-Feb2026
Age verification laws are as useful as the proposed Indiana law that said pi=3.
1 Like
They clarified that’s not the case, “there are currently no concrete plans on how, or even whether, Ubuntu will change in response” (source)
1 Like
This looks like the ruling or a document for it: https://cbsaustin.com/resources/pdf/70c794d9-f8d7-489d-b4d0-9409fd2d36fb-189114911210.pdf
Class Action Suits:
If a significant number of users felt that their rights were being infringed upon, they could unite to challenge practices through class action suits.Successful legal action could prompt changes in how software companies handle user privacy and compliance, potentially leading to more robust protections.
For better or worse, one needs to bear in mind that, in order to participate in such litigation, one generally needs to have “standing”. This means that, for a California-, Colorado- or other state-level law, you’d generally need to be a citizen of those states or a business whose operations were impacted by that state. Similar for federal-level (if you’re not a US citizen or company selling in the US, you have no standing to participate). Absent standing to be a litigant, the best you can usually do is file an amicus brief and/or contribute to a legal fund to pay for the litigation-costs.
I think if you where to give everyone with a calafornian ip a different installer which has some question asking for your age regardless if your online or not, if your not old enough it won’t let you install
If you downloaded it in not california your fine and don’t have that question
Not a lawyer but I don’t see anything in the bill that would indicate that this would solve anything.
To my non-lawyer eyes, bill seems to make operating system providers liable for all installations/accounts in the state, including existing installations. So blocking downloads from California would seemingly have no effect on operating system provider liability:
1798.502.
(a) With respect to a device for which account setup was completed before January 1, 2027, an operating system provider shall, before July 1, 2027, provide an accessible interface that allows an account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store.
(b) If an application last updated with updates on or after January 1, 2026, was downloaded to a device before January 1, 2027, and the developer has not requested a signal with respect to the user of the device on which the application was downloaded, the developer shall request a signal from a covered application store with respect to that user before July 1, 2027.
What about existing installations and accounts? What about users who install an OS in Oregon, and then move to California? The bill doesn’t seem to make exceptions here.
We all missed a salient point: it says “that allows an account holder to indicate the birth date”. It doesn’t say “that mandates the account holder indicate the birth date”.
The mandate is that software stores “shall request a signal”.
1 Like
Sounds like a solution could be to have a separate DOB flow dialog (like GNOME first-setup where it asks for timezone/user), with a skip button (OS allows entry but doesn’t mandate it)
I think that might just be yet another point in which this bill is poorly written, because it uses requires earlier:
(1) Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store.
1 Like
Requires like: The dialog has to exist for a user to be able to enter a date? (date required)
Or: The dialog is required to exist, but can be skipped/left blank?
How about the Brazilian version of this law that goes into effect in 16ish days?
I’m not a lawyer so I’m not sure. But the specifics on the dialog box are the least of my concerns at this point. My main questions are:
- What constitutes a “good faith effort” as required by the bill? Would storing this in a file in /etc as @jspaleta mentioned be sufficient, or would that be seen as insufficiently good faith, since wheel users can modify that file?
- Does restricting California users’ access to downloads/repos help here? I would think it doesn’t, since the bill seems to apply to existing installations and installations moved from state to state.
- 1798.501 is the part that everyone seems to be ignoring. It seems to legally require that literally every application in existence implement a check with the OS level age bracket api. This would affect every application on Flathub, most packages in Fedora’s repos, every package in brew, etc.
(c) “Application” means a software application that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device that can access a covered application store or download an application.
(f) “Developer” means a person that owns, maintains, or controls an application.
(b) (1) A developer shall request a signal with respect to a particular user from an operating system provider or a covered application store when the application is downloaded and launched.
A lot of the current panic about Linux needing age verification seems overblown.
Laws like the California Digital Age Assurance Act are aimed at platform ecosystems that run app stores and user identity systems (Apple, Google, Microsoft). Linux distributions don’t operate that kind of centralized platform.
Fedora distributes software; it doesn’t run a consumer device ecosystem or a mandatory account system. That makes enforcement against a distro fundamentally different from enforcement against a commercial platform.
So this is something worth watching, but right now it looks more like speculation than an actual requirement for Linux distributions.
3 Likes
aimed at
Still not a lawyer but if that’s the intent, then that’s all the more reason why this bill should be amended to clarify the intent, since as written it is far more sweeping:
(g) “Operating system provider” means a person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device.
1 Like
There is a daily fine until a OS implements age verification… Fedora should tell them to pound sand and blacklist the State/Country(Brazil’s version is more harsh).
Reading the whole law matters. While the definition of “operating system provider” is broad, the rest of the statute assumes a commercial platform model: device account setup, a covered application store, and apps requesting an age signal when downloaded and launched.
That describes ecosystems like Apple, Google, and Microsoft that control devices, accounts, and app stores. Fedora and most Linux distributions do not operate that kind of platform.
It is also worth remembering that when legislators write laws like this they are usually thinking about smartphones and large consumer platforms, not community Linux distributions.
So while the definition could be clearer, the structure and apparent intent of the law appear aimed at commercial platform ecosystems, not community Linux distributions.
1 Like
See above. It’s not clear to my non-lawyer reading that blocking downloads from particular states would do anything at all to change Fedora’s obligations.
Wheel/root users can modify anything and that is not changeable. Effectively, this would require that the user be denied root access to the system if they are “underage”.
@scald IANAL either, but my guess is Fedora legal is going to say this is a nothing burger.