Legal Scholar Slams Age Assurance Laws as Segregate-and-Suppress Tactics: I

Published Date : 7/7/2025 

A Stanford Law School paper argues that age assurance legislation, which mandates online age checks, risks creating a 'segregate-and-suppress' framework that harms minors and undermines digital privacy. The debate highlights growing tensions between online safety, regulatory challenges, and tech industry resistance. 

The evolution of digital privacy laws has sparked intense debate, particularly around age assurance legislation. As governments grapple with protecting minors online, the language and implementation of these laws have become increasingly contentious. A recent paper by Eric Goldman, a Stanford Law School professor, has reignited this discussion by labeling such regulations as 'segregate-and-suppress' measures. This term, laden with historical and social connotations, frames age verification as a system that disproportionately targets and restricts young users. n nGoldman’s analysis centers on the legal and technical complexities of age assurance. He argues that mandating age checks for online content creates a two-tiered system where minors are treated differently from adults, often leading to unintended consequences. 'Segregation' in this context refers to the act of distinguishing between age groups, while 'suppression' highlights the blocking of content deemed inappropriate for minors. The professor contends that these laws, while well-intentioned, risk harming the very users they aim to protect. 'Online age authentication exposes minors (and adults) to heightened privacy and security risks,' he writes, suggesting that the infrastructure required for such checks could enable broader surveillance. n nThe paper also points out the lack of consistency in age assurance laws across jurisdictions. Goldman notes that definitions of 'minor' vary, and the methods for determining age—whether through biometric data, algorithmic estimation, or manual verification—are not standardized. This inconsistency, he argues, creates a patchwork of regulations that are difficult for both users and platforms to navigate. 'There is no consistency in how the laws define minors, how the entities are supposed to determine who is a minor, what entities the laws regulate, and how the laws require those entities to restrict minors,' he states. n nCritics of age assurance legislation, including Goldman, often cite the potential for overreach. For example, the use of biometric data for age estimation raises concerns about data privacy and misuse. While some methods, like tokenized age verification, aim to minimize data exposure, the broader implementation of these systems could lead to a 'surveillance state' where personal information is collected and monitored. 'As age authentication becomes widely deployed across the Internet, governments will inevitably co-opt the process to increase their control over their constituents,' Goldman warns. n nThe debate also touches on the economic implications of age assurance laws. Goldman argues that compliance costs could force smaller publishers offline, reducing the availability of online content and exacerbating digital divides. He suggests that platforms might respond by erecting paywalls or limiting access, ultimately harming both minors and adults. 'Collectively, these economic forces will drive some publishers offline, making less content and fewer services available to readers (minors and adults alike),' he writes. n nDespite these concerns, supporters of age assurance legislation argue that it is necessary to protect children from harmful online content. They point to the risks associated with unregulated access to pornography, self-harm sites, and other inappropriate material. 'Restricting access to such content is not about stifling innovation but about safeguarding vulnerable users,' one advocate says. However, Goldman counters that the 'stifling innovation' argument is often used to justify resistance from the tech industry, which has a vested interest in maintaining open access to digital platforms. n nThe paper also raises ethical questions about the long-term impact of age assurance on youth. Goldman suggests that requiring minors to disclose personal information for age verification could stigmatize them and send harmful messages about digital privacy. 'By enacting age authentication mandates, the government sends a clear message to Internet readers: they must 'pay' for the privilege of enjoying online content and services by sharing their highly sensitive personal information with online strangers,' he writes. This, he argues, could shape how young users perceive their right to privacy and autonomy online. n nIn response to these challenges, Goldman proposes alternative solutions, such as enhancing digital literacy and parental oversight. He advocates for policies that empower minors to navigate the internet responsibly rather than relying on restrictive age checks. 'Policymakers should ensure that minors develop the digital literacy and citizenship skills they need for their future personal and professional growth,' he suggests. However, critics argue that these solutions are insufficient without stronger regulatory frameworks. n nThe paper has drawn comparisons to the lobbying efforts of industry groups like NetChoice, which has been vocal in opposing age assurance legislation. Goldman’s amicus brief in the Moody v. NetChoice case highlights the alignment between his arguments and the interests of tech companies seeking to avoid compliance costs. This has led some to question the neutrality of his analysis, suggesting that his critique may be influenced by industry pressures. n nAs the debate over age assurance legislation continues, the tension between online safety and digital freedom remains unresolved. While some argue that age checks are necessary to protect minors, others warn that they risk creating a system that disproportionately targets and restricts young users. The outcome of this debate will have far-reaching implications for the future of the internet and the rights of its users. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS): 

Q: What is age assurance legislation?

A: Age assurance legislation refers to laws requiring online platforms to verify users' ages to restrict access to content deemed unsuitable for minors. This often involves age verification methods like biometric data or algorithmic estimation.

Q: Why does Eric Goldman criticize age assurance laws?

A: Goldman argues that these laws create a 'segregate-and-suppress' framework, harming minors by restricting their access to online content and increasing privacy and security risks. He also highlights inconsistencies in how these laws are implemented.

Q: How do age verification methods work?

A: Age verification can involve checking a user's date of birth, using biometric data, or estimating age through algorithms. Tokenized methods allow verification without disclosing exact birth dates, but concerns about data privacy persist.

Q: What are the risks of age assurance legislation?

A: Risks include heightened privacy concerns, potential government surveillance, economic burdens on smaller publishers, and the stigmatization of minors. Critics also argue that such laws may not effectively protect children from harmful content.

Q: What solutions does Goldman propose?

A: Goldman advocates for improving digital literacy among minors, enhancing parental oversight, and conducting more research on the impact of online content. He also emphasizes the need for policies that balance safety with digital freedom. 

More Related Topics :