Ohio Weighs Possible Age-Verification Law Approaches
Ohio senators on Tuesday weighed whether a bill requiring age verification at the app store level, or one that features age verification by app stores and developers, would better protect kids online.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Privacy Daily provides accurate coverage of newsworthy developments in data protection legislation, regulation, litigation, and enforcement for privacy professionals responsible for ensuring effective organizational data privacy compliance.
“We had two bills relative to parental control that look at parental control on the on apps [and] on the internet in two different ways, and so I set it up so that those two bills go together,” said Committee Chair Steve Wilson (R) at a Senate Technology Committee hearing Tuesday.
SB-167, introduced by Sen. Michele Reynolds (R), would require app store age verification. “This bill, quite simply, is helping to make our kids safe online,” Reynolds said. It “requires the option to indicate if the user is a minor when setting a phone up at the app store,” and if chosen, “the child's account is then linked to the parents.”
Then, parental consent is required every time a minor wants to make an in-app purchase or download a new app -- specifically, any app “with direct access to emergency services or hotlines to ensure that minors aren't unknowingly engaging in high-risk services without guidance,” she added.
Additionally, the bill “strictly limits data collection to what is necessary."
On the other hand, SB-175, introduced by Sen. Thomas Patton (R), would instead establish age verification and parental controls for app stores as well as certain developers.
Vice Chair George Lang (R) asked both senators which approach would make more sense, or if there was a possibility of the two working together on one bill.
“With an app-store approach, parents would only have to age verify their teen once when they help set up their phones,” Reynolds said. “By contrast, an app-by-app approach would require parents to do this over and over again on each of the 40-plus apps that their teens use per week.”
“An app-store approach effectively reduces barriers for new and smaller developers, since app stores like the Apple App Store and Google Play would be responsible for verifying age and consent,” Reynolds added.
Patton, however, noted that the app store verification doesn't address the fact that a minor could access a platform through a web browser instead of an app. “That's a significant part of the difference,” he said, and “that's what we need to avoid.”
“If we're going to [implement] some controls, we want to make sure we have easy-to-follow parental controls that the parents could see, and the parents could watch and make sure that their children [are] as safe as they could possibly make them,” he added.
“At the end of the day, we want to make sure that our children are safe online,” said Reynolds, adding that she and Patton “want the same thing.” However, she said, "there are some constitutional issues with the app-by-app approach,” referring to First Amendment challenges to similar laws in other states.
As Wilson adjourned the meeting, he said that the committee would hold additional hearings on the two bills together, “so that we as a committee can hopefully facilitate the final product.”