Navigating Age Verification Laws in the USA and Europe: Compliance for iGaming, Social Media, and Beyond

Introduction
Age verification has become a critical compliance checkpoint for online businesses – from iGaming platforms and online casinos to social media networks and content sites. Lawmakers in the United States and Europe are increasingly focused on keeping minors away from age-restricted content and services. This means companies must verify users’ ages and meet strict legal standards, all while respecting user privacy. In this article, we’ll explore the key age verification laws in the U.S. and Europe (including regulations like GDPR, COPPA, KYC requirements, and the EU Digital Services Act) and what they mean for industries like online gambling and social media. We’ll also discuss whether businesses are required to use specialized age verification tools (such as biometric age-check SDKs like Bynn.com), and how privacy-preserving methods – like facial age estimation and zero-knowledge proofs – can confirm a user's age without storing sensitive data. Finally, we’ll clarify the difference between age verification and full identity verification, and why each serves a different purpose.

The goal is to give you an informative, engaging overview of age verification compliance, with a healthy mix of complexity and clear examples to keep things readable. Let’s dive in.

The Legal Push for Age Verification in Different Industries

Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic have good reason to demand age checks: to protect children and teens from inappropriate content, and to ensure adults-only services (like gambling or alcohol sales) aren’t accessed by minors. But the specific laws and compliance requirements can vary significantly by industry and region. Here’s a look at the major legal frameworks that drive age verification in social media, gaming, and other sectors:

• United States – COPPA and Industry-Specific Rules: In the U.S., the cornerstone federal law for protecting children online is the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). COPPA makes it illegal for websites or online services to collect personal information from children under 13 without verifiable parental consent​. In practice, this is why most mainstream social media apps, for example, ban kids under 13 from creating accounts – or require a parent to approve. COPPA doesn’t dictate exactly how to verify a child’s age or obtain parental consent, leaving it to companies to choose a method “reasonably designed” to ensure the consent is coming from the parent​. Many sites simply ask for the user’s birthdate or have a checkbox for “I am over 13,” which technically places the onus on the user. However, relying on an honor system is risky – COPPA expects “reasonable efforts” to confirm ages when there’s a chance children are using the service.

• Outside of COPPA’s under-13 rule, there isn’t yet a single federal law requiring social media or other platforms to verify ages of teen users. That said, momentum is building. Multiple U.S. states have started passing laws that impose age assurance for minors on social platforms. For instance, Florida enacted a law requiring social media platforms to obtain parental consent for users 14–15 and to terminate accounts of children under 14 (interestingly, Florida’s law stops short of mandating any specific age verification method)​. Other states – such as Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee – have gone further, explicitly requiring platforms to implement age verification and parental consent for minors’ accounts​. Although some of these laws are facing legal challenges, they signal a clear trend in the U.S.: regulators want stronger age checks on social media to keep young users safe.

• In industries like online gambling and iGaming, U.S. regulations already effectively mandate age verification as part of broader compliance. There’s no federal gambling age law – instead, each state sets the minimum legal gambling age (commonly 18, or 21 for casinos in many states)​. All gambling operators, whether in-person or online, must have a system to verify customers’ ages to comply with these state laws​. In practice, online casinos and sportsbooks in the U.S. use robust Know Your Customer (KYC) processes to verify a player’s identity and age during signup. This typically means collecting personal information (name, address, date of birth) and checking it against government ID or databases. Age verification is one of the most crucial pieces of KYC info in the gambling industry, since allowing a minor to gamble not only breaks the law but can cause huge reputational and legal consequences​. In short, if you operate an online betting platform, you must reliably confirm that each player is above the legal age – a simple “Are you 21+? [Yes/No]” pop-up won’t cut it.

• Europe – GDPR, Digital Services Act, and National Regulations: Across Europe, age verification requirements have been driven by both privacy laws and content regulations. A key piece is the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which, among many things, addresses children’s consent for data processing. GDPR Article 8 sets the “age of digital consent” at 16 by default (with EU member states allowed to set a lower threshold, as low as 13). If a child is below that age, a service must obtain parental consent to lawfully process the child’s personal data​. Notably, the GDPR doesn’t spell out exactly how a company should verify a user's age or a parent's consent – it simply says you should make “reasonable efforts” to verify that consent is valid. In fact, European data protection authorities have indicated that an *implicit obligation exists for controllers to take “reasonable efforts” to verify age when a user claims to be old enough to consent​. The verification method should be proportionate to the risk of the service: for low-risk scenarios, self-declaration might be deemed sufficient, but in higher-risk cases, stronger checks are expected​. Crucially, GDPR’s emphasis on data minimization means companies should not collect more personal data than necessary just to verify age​. In other words, regulators urge a balance – verify ages, but don’t turn that process into a privacy invasion of its own.

• More recently, the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) – which took effect in 2024 – explicitly pushes major online platforms to adopt age assurance measures to protect minors. Under Article 35 of the DSA, “Very Large Online Platforms” (VLOPs) and search engines have to put in place “reasonable, proportionate and effective” measures to mitigate risks to minors, and it specifies that such measures may include age verification​. This means big social media networks, app stores, or video platforms operating in Europe are expected to consider robust age checks as part of their child-safety toolkit. For smaller platforms that are “accessible to minors,” the DSA (Article 28(1)) requires appropriate measures to ensure a high level of privacy, safety, and security for minor users​. Importantly, the law also includes a caveat in Article 28(3) stating that these platforms are not obliged to process personal data solely to determine a user’s age​. In plain English, the EU isn’t forcing every website to start demanding ID from all users; the measures should be proportionate. However, the direction is clear – the largest platforms will be held accountable for not having effective age assurance. In fact, the European Commission has already opened investigations into major social media companies under the DSA, scrutinizing whether they have “effective age verification measures” in place for protecting kids​. We can expect further guidance soon (the EU is working on harmonized age verification guidelines) and potentially broader requirements in the future​.

• Alongside these EU-wide laws, several European countries have implemented their own aggressive age verification rules. France is a prime example: in 2023, France passed a law to require parental consent for minors under 15 signing up to social media (though enforcement of this is on hold pending EU-level consistency)​. France also enacted the SREN law targeting adult content websites, which mandates strict age verification to ensure users are 18 or older before accessing any pornographic content​. The French regulator even introduced a detailed technical standard for these age verification systems – effective January 2025 – with hefty fines (up to €150k or 2% of global turnover) for sites that don’t comply​. This technical standard lays out core principles of an effective age verification system, such as reliability (e.g. ability to detect liveness if using facial age estimation, to ensure a kid isn’t just holding up a photo of an adult) and independence of the verification provider (the site shouldn’t have direct access to the sensitive data used for age checking)​. We’ll revisit these principles later, but the key point is that Europe is moving towards robust age verification across various sectors – not just for gambling and adult content, but even for social media and gaming to the extent minors are involved. The UK has likewise tightened requirements through its Age Appropriate Design Code and the new Online Safety Act, which will require “highly effective” age verification or estimation measures on platforms likely to be accessed by kids​. For instance, UK regulators have made it explicit that simply asking users to self-declare their age “cannot be considered an effective” age assurance method​– a clear signal that more rigorous solutions (e.g. Biometric Liveness Identification.) must be used.

• Know Your Customer (KYC) and Regulated Industries: Apart from child protection rules, age verification is often a legal requirement in regulated industries via KYC and anti-fraud laws. Online gambling (iGaming) is a prime example where age verification and identity verification overlap. In Europe, online gambling operators must comply with national gambling laws and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) directives, which treat the verification of a customer’s identity and age as mandatory. Regulators and gaming commissions (like those in the UK, Malta, etc.) uniformly require that all players be verified and all minors be excluded from real-money play​. If an online casino fails to verify ages and inadvertently allows underage gambling, it faces severe penalties – in the UK, for example, regulators have not hesitated to levy heavy fines (the UK Gambling Commission issued over £200 million in fines in 2023 alone for various compliance failures)​. KYC processes for casinos and betting sites usually involve checking a government-issued ID (passport, driver’s license, etc.) to confirm the player’s identity and date of birth, sometimes supplemented with a database check or a utility bill. The bottom line: whether by explicit law or as a condition of licensing, gambling platforms must perform age verification as part of their customer onboarding. In fact, guidance in the industry suggests that a pop-up asking “Are you over 18?” is nowhere near sufficient – regulators expect a “strict verification process” that proves due diligence in keeping underage players out​. The same goes for other age-restricted commerce, like alcohol or vape e-commerce, where laws require sellers to verify the buyer’s age at purchase or delivery. In summary, if you’re in a business that sells age-restricted products or services, you likely have a legal obligation to implement age verification, either directly under law or indirectly via KYC/AML compliance.

Are Businesses Required to Use Age Verification Tools (Like Biometric SDKs)?

With all these laws requiring age verification, a practical question arises: How should businesses implement age checks, and are they legally required to use specific tools or technologies to do so? For instance, if you run a social app or an iGaming site, do you have to use a biometric age verification SDK (such as the one offered by Bynn.com), or can you rely on simpler methods? Let’s clarify the expectations:

No one specific tool is mandated by law, but effective age verification is mandatory in many cases. Regulations usually describe the outcome required (e.g. “prevent minors from access” or “obtain verifiable parental consent”) rather than prescribing a particular technology. COPPA, for example, doesn’t say “you must use facial recognition” – it just requires that whatever method you choose to get parental consent is reasonably calculated to verify the person is actually the parent​. Similarly, the EU’s DSA says measures “may include age verification” but leaves it open how to implement that​. However, as regulatory guidance evolves, the bar for what counts as an adequate age check has risen. Simply taking a user’s word for it is often deemed inadequate. As mentioned, UK’s Online Safety Act and its guidance outright reject user self-declaration as ineffective​. The writing on the wall is that businesses in sensitive sectors will need to deploy robust technical measures – whether that’s validating an ID document, using a credit card check, or leveraging biometrics – to truly comply.

So while you won’t find a statute that says “Thou shalt use XYZ age verification software,” in practice companies are turning to specialized age verification tools to meet compliance. These tools automate and strengthen the process, helping businesses avoid legal trouble. For example, one class of solutions is biometric age verification SDKs – software development kits that can estimate or confirm a user’s age based on biometric data (usually a facial scan). Bynn.com is an example of a provider in this space, offering an all-in-one identity verification platform that includes biometric checks. In fact, Bynn’s solution is used in industries like online gambling explicitly to simplify age verification and compliance: it can instantly verify a player’s ID and age, check for duplicates, and ensure transactions meet regulations​. By integrating an SDK like Bynn’s, a business can have users undergo a quick face scan or ID scan during onboarding; the system’s AI will then confirm if the person is real (liveness check), and if their age meets the requirement, often in seconds. This kind of automation is invaluable in iGaming, where you might need to verify thousands of new users without manual review delays.

It’s worth noting that some regulators have even started approving or certifying third-party age verification providers. Germany’s youth protection commission (KJM), for instance, maintains a list of approved age verification vendors considered compliant with its standards​. This doesn’t force companies to use those specific vendors, but it strongly incentivizes them to choose solutions that meet recognized criteria. France’s new technical standard for adult sites similarly implies that using an independent, certified age verification service (which meets the standard’s reliability and privacy rules) is the safe harbor for compliance​.

In summary, businesses aren’t told the exact tool to use, but they are increasingly required to achieve the result of reliably verifying user ages. If they fail (e.g. minors still slip through due to flimsy checks), they can face fines, legal liability, or loss of license. Given that, adopting a proven age verification solution – whether it’s a document verification process or a biometric SDK like Bynn – is becoming a best practice. These tools provide a documented level of assurance that can satisfy regulators. They also help businesses avoid reinventing the wheel or running afoul of privacy rules by doing verification in-house incorrectly.

To put it bluntly: a simple age gate is no longer enough. As one industry commentary succinctly noted, “a pop-up screen that asks if a visitor is over 18 does not qualify as age verification and may no longer be sufficient to prove due diligence”​. Companies need to be able to demonstrate they took real steps to verify ages. Using advanced age verification technologies is often the easiest way to meet that burden of proof.

Privacy-Preserving Age Verification Methods (Facial Age Estimation & Zero-Knowledge Proofs)

Implementing age checks raises a tricky issue: privacy. Many of the effective methods for age verification involve personal data – scanning IDs, taking biometric measurements (like a face image), or querying databases. If handled poorly, these measures could clash with data protection laws or undermine user trust. The good news is that modern techniques are emerging to verify age without storing or exposing sensitive data, aligning with the principle of data minimization. Two notable approaches are AI-powered facial age estimation and zero-knowledge proof mechanisms.

1. Facial Age Estimation (with No Data Retention): This method uses computer vision and machine learning to estimate a user’s age from their facial features – essentially, the software looks at a selfie and outputs an age or age range. The process typically works like this: a user is prompted to enable their camera (for example, an app might say “Please look at your camera for an age check”). The system detects the face, analyzes features (skin, bone structure, etc.), and compares them to a trained model to predict an age. Crucially, this can be done in a matter of seconds and without storing the photo. Many providers design their facial age estimation to be ephemeral – the image is analyzed on the fly and either never uploaded to a server, or if it is, it’s immediately deleted after getting the age result. This means the service gets an age guess but doesn’t keep a biometric profile or identity record of the user.

From a privacy standpoint, such “scan-and-forget” age checks are far less intrusive than, say, requiring a passport upload. They also tend to be frictionless for the user (no forms to fill, just look at the camera). However, they must be implemented carefully. Accuracy is one concern – the AI needs to be reasonably accurate, especially around crucial thresholds (e.g. distinguishing a 17-year-old from an 18-year-old). Providers often report that modern algorithms can estimate young people’s ages within a small margin of error (some claim within ~1-2 years for teens and young adults)​. Another concern is spoofing: what if a teenager simply holds up a picture of their older sibling to the camera? To counter this, age estimation systems include liveness detection – techniques to ensure there’s a real, live person in front of the camera, not a photo or video replay. This might involve asking the user to turn their head, blink, or the system analyzing subtle motions like breath or skin texture. For example, France’s standard explicitly calls out the need for liveness detection when using facial age estimation​. When done right, facial age estimation offers a privacy-preserving age check: the site only learns “Is this person likely over the required age?” and not the person’s name or exact date of birth. Plus, since no personal data is retained, it complies with the “limited retention” and “data minimization” principles of laws like GDPR​. The European Data Protection Board and national regulators have been cautiously supportive of such methods, as they potentially allow age control without building giant databases of children’s IDs.

2. Zero-Knowledge Proof of Age: A more technologically sophisticated solution involves cryptography, specifically zero-knowledge proofs (ZKP). Zero-knowledge proofs allow someone to prove a certain statement is true without revealing the underlying information. In the context of age verification, a ZKP system could let a user prove “I am over 18” without ever disclosing their birth date or any other personal info. How would this magic work? One approach is to use a trusted third party (or a government-issued digital ID) that knows the user’s birthdate. That party can then generate a cryptographic token or proof that only verifies the age condition. For instance, imagine you upload your ID to a trusted age verification service once, and it creates a signed token saying “Age > 18: True” (and perhaps anonymized ID of the verifier). When you go to a website, instead of giving them your ID, you just present this token. The website can cryptographically verify the token’s signature and timestamp to confirm it’s valid and unaltered, satisfying itself that you are adult, without learning your actual DOB or identity. In essence, the math ensures the site learns nothing beyond the fact that your age claim is true.

To illustrate with a simple analogy: it’s like a bouncer asking for proof you’re adult, and instead of showing your driver’s license (which reveals your name, address, exact birthdate), you show a special card that simply says “Over-21 verified” issued by a trusted authority. The bouncer can trust the card because of tamper-proof features, and doesn’t need to know who you are. That’s what zero-knowledge age proofs aim for digitally. In practice, these systems can get complex, but the concept has been proven. In fact, zero-knowledge proofs are already used in some digital identity frameworks. According to one identity tech provider, ZKPs enable scenarios like a user proving they are over a certain age without disclosing their exact birthdate, by generating a cryptographic proof of the age condition​. The benefit is maximal privacy: the service gets yes/no on age, and nothing else.

Some emerging standards and projects in Europe are looking at combining digital IDs with attributes disclosure via ZKP. For example, the EU’s eID initiative could, in the future, allow a government digital ID app to provide an “18+ OK” credential that online services can accept. All the heavy lifting (checking the actual ID) is done by the trusted issuer, and the online site never sees the user’s personal data. We’re still in early days for widespread deployment of ZKP-based age checks, but it’s a promising area that could reconcile strong verification with data minimization. Even France’s approach of separating the pornographic site and the AVS provider (age verification service) so that the site never sees the user’s data is a step in this direction​– effectively a simpler form of a double-blind system.

From a compliance perspective, regulators are encouraging privacy-preserving age verification. The French CNIL (data protection authority) has stated that any system for verifying minors’ ages should comply with privacy principles like minimization and purpose limitation​. And as noted, the ICO in the UK has issued guidance on age assurance that emphasizes finding solutions which verify age without harvesting excessive personal data​. So businesses exploring age verification should definitely consider solutions that, for example, analyze an image without storing it, or use anonymized credentials, as these will likely be seen favorably by regulators and users alike.

Age Verification vs. Identity Verification: Two Different Goals

It’s important to draw a clear line between age verification and identity verification. These terms are not interchangeable – they refer to checks that serve different purposes, and one can often be done without the other.

• Age Verification means confirming that a user falls into an allowed age bracket (typically above a minimum age). The only piece of information that needs to be verified is the user’s age (or date of birth). Crucially, age verification does not require knowing someone’s full identity. You could verify that “User X is 18 years old” without even knowing User X’s name or address. The goal is purely to enforce age-based access rules (e.g. 18+ only, or 13+ to create an account, etc.). Many age verification implementations are essentially a subset of identity verification – for example, checking someone’s ID will inherently give you their birthdate, thereby verifying age as a side effect. But age can also be verified through the lighter methods we discussed (face estimation, tokens, etc.) that don’t reveal identity. Privacy advocates prefer solutions that verify age alone when that’s all that’s needed, so that users don’t have to disclose more personal info than necessary to enjoy age-appropriate content.
• Identity Verification, on the other hand, is about confirming a person’s identity details – typically their legal name, document authenticity, sometimes their address, and overall that they are who they claim to be. This is the full KYC (Know Your Customer) process used in banking, finance, and gambling. Identity verification often includes age as one element (because an ID has a birthdate), but it goes far beyond that. The purpose here is broader: to prevent fraud, impersonation, money laundering, and to ensure each user can be held accountable to their real identity if needed. For example, a crypto exchange or an online casino will perform identity verification to check for excluded players or self-exclusions, to keep out fraudsters, and to comply with AML laws – not just to check age. That means collecting an ID document, verifying its authenticity, matching the document photo to a selfie, and maybe running database checks (e.g. sanction lists or PEP checks). This obviously entails processing sensitive personal data.

The two processes can work together or separately. In some scenarios, you might only need age verification and not full identity verification. For instance, a social media platform that just wants to ensure no users under 13 might implement an age verification mechanism at signup. They don’t actually need to know each user’s real identity – they just need confidence the user is old enough (and if not, maybe involve a parent). In such a case, doing a full identity check on every user would be overkill and a privacy concern. It’s better to use a lightweight age check (like an AI estimation or an electronic ID token) to get a yes/no on age. This satisfies the requirement (like COPPA or the Age Appropriate Design Code) without collecting a trove of personal data on all users.

Conversely, in other scenarios, identity verification is mandatory and it inherently covers age. Online gambling is a good example: When a new player registers, the platform will perform a KYC identity verification – verifying name, identity, and age all at once. Here, age verification is essentially a subset of the identity verification workflow. The regulatory need (prevent underage gambling and financial crimes) forces the platform to know exactly who the user is. So there’s no point in doing a separate anonymous age check; you go straight to ID verification. In these cases, age verification is “baked into” the identity verification. As one compliance guide explains, age verification is an essential part of KYC identity checks, especially in regulated sectors – determining a person’s age is only one component of a broader identity verification process​. In short, identity verification = “Who are you, and are you legit?”; age verification = “Are you old enough for this?”.

To illustrate the difference, consider this two-step example: Suppose we have an online gaming platform with a virtual casino. When a new user tries to enter the casino section, the platform might first do an age verification gate – e.g. prompt the user to confirm or prove they are of legal gambling age (18 or 21). This could be done by having them input their date of birth and maybe quickly scan a face for estimation. Once the user is cleared as an adult and allowed into the platform, the identity verification kicks in: the user might be asked to provide additional info like their full name, address, and upload an ID document, which the casino then verifies for authenticity. This second step ensures the person is real and ties their account to a verified identity, fulfilling anti-fraud and AML requirements. In this scenario, the age check serves as the initial filter, and the identity check is a deeper vetting that follows​. If the user had failed the age check, they’d never get to the identity stage at all – they’d be blocked due to age. If they pass age, they still need to pass identity verification to actually withdraw money or fully use the service.

Now, why emphasize this distinction? Because mixing up age verification with identity verification can lead to unnecessary data collection. Regulators encourage services to choose the right tool for the job. If all you need to know is someone’s age, you shouldn’t be requiring a full passport and identity disclosure – that would violate the idea of data minimization (collecting data irrelevant to the specific purpose)​. This is reflected in laws like the DSA, which, as noted, doesn’t force platforms to verify the identity or age of every user — it asks for protection of minors while cautioning not to process personal data just to identify a minor​. The spirit of such provisions is to allow anonymous or pseudonymous use of online services for adults, while still finding ways to shield minors from harm. In practice, it means companies might implement an age estimation feature that simply separates likely minors from adults, rather than verifying everyone’s identity card.

On the other hand, when fraud prevention or legal compliance does demand identity verification (like banking or high-stakes gaming), skipping it in favor of just an age check would be disastrously insufficient. For example, an online broker that only asked “Are you over 18?” without verifying who the user actually is would not meet KYC laws at all – a money launderer could lie about everything. So, each serves its purpose: age verification protects minors and complies with age-specific laws; identity verification builds trust and complies with financial/criminal laws. Many businesses will end up using both, but it’s useful to know when each applies.

Conclusion

Age verification has quickly moved from a minor checkbox on websites to a major compliance mandate in the digital world. Governments in the U.S., EU, and beyond are signaling that online businesses must take reasonable – and increasingly, effective – steps to keep underage users out of spaces where they don’t belong, whether that’s a poker app, an alcohol delivery service, or a social media platform with adult content. We’ve seen the introduction of concrete rules like COPPA, GDPR’s age consent provision, the EU Digital Services Act, and a patchwork of state laws – all aimed at making the internet safer for kids and teens. For businesses, this means age verification can no longer be an afterthought. It needs to be built into user onboarding and content access workflows, tailored to the level of risk and regulatory requirements of your industry.

At the same time, compliance is not just about keeping regulators happy – it’s also about maintaining user trust. If verifying age becomes too invasive (like asking every user for a passport scan on signup to a casual social app), it could drive users away and raise privacy concerns. That’s why the emergence of privacy-preserving age verification methods is so exciting. Techniques like facial age estimation and zero-knowledge proofs allow companies to enforce age limits without stockpiling personal data or violating user anonymity. These approaches, combined with features like liveness detection and independent verification services, show that it’s possible to strike a balance between safety and privacy. In fact, data protection authorities are explicitly encouraging solutions that verify age in a proportionate, minimally intrusive way​– meaning if you can accomplish the goal with less data, do so.

For industries like iGaming, which have long dealt with strict KYC rules, integrating a robust age check is simply part of doing business responsibly. Providers like Bynn.com are making it easier with plug-and-play SDKs that handle everything from document scanning to biometric analysis, so that even a fast-growing startup can implement bank-grade verification without building it from scratch. For social media and general online platforms, the landscape is shifting: what used to be a simple “enter your birthdate” may soon involve more nuanced age assurance (especially for large platforms under scrutiny). It’s a good time for those companies to start evaluating solutions – perhaps an AI age estimation for casual users, with an ID-based verification backup if the AI flags uncertainty or if legal guardianship needs confirmation.

Another key takeaway is understanding when you need full identity verification versus just an age check. They are complementary but different tools in your compliance toolkit. If your objective is only to restrict by age, you can often do that in a user-friendly, privacy-friendly way without demanding full identity. Conversely, if you operate in a regulated market, age is just one checkbox and you’ll likely need a comprehensive identity verification process anyway.

In conclusion, staying compliant with age verification laws in the US and Europe is not just about avoiding fines – it’s about demonstrating your platform’s commitment to social responsibility and user welfare. An online casino that diligently keeps minors out or a social app that creates a walled garden for kids (with parental oversight) isn’t just following the law; it’s building trust with its community and brand. As we move forward, we can expect authorities to keep ratcheting up the standards for age verification (the UK’s push for “highly effective” measures​is likely a sign of things to come elsewhere). Businesses that act now – implementing robust, privacy-conscious age verification – will be ahead of the curve. They’ll have the processes in place to onboard users smoothly, keep their platforms safe, and provide regulators with confidence that “Yes, we know our users are the appropriate age – and we did it in a way that respects their privacy and security.”