Introduction
Legislators at the state and federal level are exploring whether to impose age verification requirements on digital service providers, defined broadly here to refer to AI companion chatbot operators, app stores, social media platforms, and related entities. The precise details of these proposals often are omitted from common discussion and yet merit close scrutiny. First and foremost, these policies raise important constitutional questions. Second and relatedly, the contours of age verification policies determine the extent to which users, including minors and their parents, may be required to turn over particularly sensitive information and endure time-intensive procedural processes to appeal inaccurate decisions.
This brief seeks to cover the latter inquiry with a specific focus on the knowledge standard imposed on digital service providers and the corresponding implications for users.
A few qualifications are necessary in any conversation regarding technological tools and age verification. Policymaking in this field is characterized by instances of lawmakers incorrectly forecasting the pace of technological advances in age verification and, critically, the extent to which those advances will maintain and enhance user privacy. Common tools today, such as Yoti, suffer from similar shortcomings. Like the hoped-for advances of previous technological eras, there’s a gulf between expectations of new privacy-protecting age-verification tools and the net result of their implementation. More generally, variability in the accuracy and effectiveness of age detection technology warrants legislative humility. Each tool poses “a tradeoff between reliable accuracy and privacy. The legality of various age verification strategies and the technological tools therein is highly contested and unresolved.
A final note before diving into the weeds of different knowledge standards: though the technological, cultural, and economic factors related to raising children to become productive members of a democratic society have shifted, a few principles have remained at the core of legislative action, judicial review, and regulatory enforcement.
First, parents exercise a wide latitude of authority in determining how best to raise their children and have a constitutional right to do so without direction from the state.
Second, as stated in 1999 by Senator Richard Bryan, co-sponsor of COPPA, such laws ought to “enhance parental involvement in a child’s online activities in order to protect the privacy of children in the online environment.”
Third, each technology merits unique treatment. The unique pros and cons of AI are not widely understood. Most parents have yet to intentionally and diligently pursue greater understanding of AI. Fewer than one in five parents agreed with the following statement: “I actively seek out information and resources to better understand AI technologies.” There’s also compelling evidence that many parents have yet to meaningfully test AI tools in their personal or professional capacities. An added wrinkle in the AI space is that the relevant internal policies of AI labs are changing quickly as are the capabilities (and limitations on a per user basis) of their models. The net result is that any action taken in the AI regulatory space is likely to be out of date on several dimensions in a period of months, if not weeks.
Knowledge Standards
States and federal legislators have been experimenting with different knowledge standards related to a user’s age to trigger additional legal responsibilities for digital service providers. A full analysis of those legislative interventions is beyond the scope of this overview. The more generic analysis adopted here suffices to surface the most important takeaway: selection of a knowledge standard has significant and unavoidable consequences in altering the likely behavior of users, parents, and digital service providers.
Actual Knowledge – potentially the least likely to infringe on user privacy
Definition
A digital service provider has actual knowledge of a user’s age when they are directly informed or consciously aware of that status. A dictionary definition of the term which some courts have relied on is “direct and clear knowledge.” Actual knowledge is a common knowledge standard across federal and state regulations and proposals. Several aspects of COPPA, for instance, are triggered upon a digital service provider having actual knowledge that a user is under the age of 13. Various states have integrated this standard into relevant laws including but not limited to Colorado and Arkansas, although the latter was enjoined by a federal district court. One analyst estimates that of comprehensive state privacy laws with youth privacy provisions the vast majority (75 percent) rely on an actual knowledge standard.
This standard is commonly supplemented with a prohibition on digital service providers intentionally avoiding learning a user’s age so as to sidestep any requirements triggered by the actual knowledge standard. In practice, a prohibition on willfully disregarding a user’s age means that if a provider has “access to information that could inform them that a user is under 18 years-old and chooses not to act on it, they may still be held responsible” under the applicable law.
Key Privacy Considerations
From the perspective of a digital service provider, this standard presents somewhat conflicting incentives absent some clarifying language as to how regulators may treat willful disregard of a user’s age. Providers may intentionally avoid learning any information about users’ ages so as to avoid having such knowledge. Those providers that adopt a more proactive stance risk being found non-compliant if they do not implement the necessary safeguards upon determining a user is a minor.
From a user’s perspective, this standard will likely subject them to comparatively few disclosure requirements relative to other standards. Under an actual knowledge framework, providers generally are not required to deploy age verification tools across their entire user base. Instead, duties attach when the provider receives clear notice of a user’s age, whether through user self-identification, parental contact, or internal reporting mechanisms. Because there is no categorical obligation to screen every user, the vast majority of users will not be asked to provide government identification, biometric data, or additional attestations. In this respect, the standard minimizes friction and data collection relative to other approaches that encourage broad-based monitoring.
Constructive Knowledge – heightened risk to user privacy
Definition
A constructive knowledge standard expands the inquiry beyond those instances in which a digital service provider is directly on notice of a user’s age and instead asks “what an operator ought to know about its users if they have carried their work in due diligence.” The focus is objective and grounded in the conduct expected of a reasonable operator under the circumstances.
Constructive knowledge formulations have appeared in both enacted statutes and high-profile legislative proposals, often through “knew or should have known” language or standards that hinge on what a reasonable operator would identify through ordinary business practices. These formulations reflect a legislative judgment that reliance on self-reporting mechanisms for users to state their age may be insufficient to advance certain child-protection goals.
Litigation involving these constructive-style triggers remains ongoing and fact-dependent. Challenges to the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, for example, have focused in part on whether obligations tied to likely child access effectively compel broad age screening or redesign of core product features. These kinds of regulatory spillovers implicate core privacy and expression interests. Courts evaluating such provisions have signaled concern where compliance pressures push platforms toward universal age verification or where statutory language lacks precision as to what diligence is required.
The broader takeaway from these early disputes is that constructive knowledge standards expand both the scope of covered services and the evidentiary questions courts must resolve. Rather than asking whether a provider was directly informed of a user’s age, courts must assess what signals were available, how platforms processed those signals, and whether the law incentivizes pervasive data collection.
Key Privacy Considerations
From the perspective of users, a constructive knowledge regime alters the background conditions of participation online. When compliance turns on what a provider ought to know through reasonable diligence, providers have incentives to monitor age-related signals more closely and to document how they respond to them. That shift can produce a subtle but meaningful chilling effect. Users, including adults, may become more cautious about posting content, joining communities, or visiting certain sites if they understand that their activity could be interpreted as evidence of age or as triggering additional scrutiny. Minors, in particular, may avoid searching for sensitive information related to health, sexuality, or identity if they believe those queries will be flagged as indicators of age and lead to restrictions or reporting. Even adults may hesitate to engage with lawful but controversial content if doing so increases the likelihood of verification prompts or account limitations.
Reasonably Determine – heightened risk to user privacy
Definition
A “reasonably determine” standard requires a digital service provider to reach an age-related conclusion based on objective factors and reasonable operational steps, even in the absence of direct notice. Under this approach, the obligation is triggered when a provider has reasonable grounds to conclude that a user is below the relevant age threshold after applying defined criteria to the information available to it.
Although this standard shares vocabulary with constructive knowledge, it is analytically distinct. A “reasonably determine” framework is more often structured as a forward-looking decision rule. It asks whether the provider applied identifiable criteria and reached a reasonable conclusion based on those criteria.
The structural features common to “reasonably determine” requirements is what makes the standard sufficiently distinct to merit separate analysis. Both constructive knowledge and “reasonably determine” approaches may encourage providers to collect additional signals, formalize internal review processes, and document compliance decisions. Under a “reasonably determine” framework, courts are more likely to examine whether the provider employed reasonable criteria, followed the prescribed process, and acted consistently with any specified statutory factors.
Key Privacy Considerations
From the perspective of digital service providers, a “reasonably determine” standard is likely to influence product design in more structured and visible ways than either actual or constructive knowledge. Because the inquiry centers on whether the provider applied identifiable criteria and followed reasonable procedures, platforms have incentives to formalize age-related decision points within onboarding flows, account settings, and content gating mechanisms. Providers may develop tiered systems in which certain features are limited until age is determined through specified methods, or in which particular risk indicators trigger escalation to additional review. This can include building internal checklists, documenting the factors considered in reaching an age determination, and calibrating the degree of certainty to the nature of the content or service at issue.
For users, the ramifications are mixed. On the one hand, a clearly structured “reasonably determine” framework can reduce some of the unpredictability associated with open-ended inference standards. If platforms rely on enumerated factors and defined escalation procedures, users may encounter more transparent age prompts and clearer explanations of why certain features are restricted. On the other hand, the very existence of formal decision criteria may increase the frequency of age-related interventions. Users could face additional prompts at sign-up, periodic re-confirmation requests, or feature-specific verification requirements tied to perceived risk. As with other knowledge standards, the risk of error remains salient. A user incorrectly classified as a minor may experience account limitations and bear the burden of appealing that decision, which may not be a straightforward process despite provider assurances. Moreover, if age determinations are informed by contextual or behavioral signals, users may adjust how they post, search, or interact in order to avoid triggering additional scrutiny. Even a well-calibrated “reasonably determine” regime thus has the potential to introduce friction and to shape user behavior in subtle ways that extend beyond the narrow goal of identifying minors.
* * *
Legislatures do not always confine themselves to the three formulations discussed above. Variants appear across state and federal proposals that borrow from familiar culpability concepts such as “reason to know,” “knew or should have known,” or “reckless disregard.” Scope-based triggers may attach duties even in the absence of individualized knowledge about a particular user. Each of these approaches can meaningfully alter how providers design compliance systems and how users experience friction.
For that reason, this brief focuses on actual knowledge, constructive knowledge, and “reasonably determine” as the principal frameworks through which legislators structure age-related obligations. Together, these standards capture the central policy choices: whether to require direct notice, to impose an objective duty to infer, or to mandate a structured determination process. They also surface the most salient tensions between child protection, parental authority, user privacy, platform design autonomy, and constitutional constraints.
Conclusion
Given the constitutional protection afforded to minors and adults alike, legislators ought to thoroughly assess which of the aforementioned knowledge standards is appropriate in any age verification legislation. Any selected knowledge standard may also implicate the First Amendment rights afforded to digital service providers. Legislators must also pay close attention to the fact that each knowledge standard imposes some degree of data exchange between users and providers.
In sum, the selection of a knowledge standard by legislators will determine how platforms structure their systems and interact with users. An actual knowledge regime confines obligations to situations of clear notice and limits incentives for pervasive screening. By contrast, constructive or “reasonably determine” standards pressure providers to collect additional signals and formalize compliance processes in ways that can approximate broad age monitoring. Legislators should therefore evaluate knowledge standards not only by reference to child-protection goals, but also by their predictable effects on data collection, anonymity, and access to lawful speech.