Three questions about California AB1043 C. 675

Submitted ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works⁩ to ⁨nostupidquestions@lemmy.world⁩

I’m obvious not a lawer, but I’m trying to wrap my head around California AB1043 C. 675. This isn’t for legal advice, nor am I Californian, I’m just trying to make sure I understand the law and its implications.

Under section 1798.501. (b) 4A, wouldn’t this make collection of almost any system information illegal? Like, this seems like it would make something as simple as reading the user’s chose theme illegal. I’ve got to be missing something, right?
Since 1798.501. (b) 2A seems to require that developers that receive this age flag treat assume it is true, this would at least apply to CCPA, and California Civil Code, right? If so, wouldn’t that mean that even an for an adult who uses this flag, sharing their data is illegal, and they are required to be given access to extra rights, like the right to delete your data?
Would 1798.501. (b) 2A also apply to COPPA? I know this is state versus federal law, but are they allowed to, under state law, regard the age value as truthful and under federal law, not?

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

anticonnor@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
Linking to the doc posted on the official.gov site: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043

source
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
These are all good questions about stupid legislation.

source
DomeGuy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
Not a lawyer, answers based on legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1043/2025

Under section 1798.501. (b) 4A, wouldn’t this make collection of almost any system information illegal?

No. Because the terms are defined in 1798.500. They can ask your system directly whatever they want; they just can’t ask Microsofg, Apple, or Google for correlating specifics.

Since 1798.501. (b) 2A seems to require that developers that receive this age flag treat assume it is true, this would at least apply to CCPA, and California Civil Code, right?

Yes, but only insomuch as laws that protect minors impose additional constraints on those who have “actual knowledge” that a user is actually a child.

It doesn’t mean they need to trust the OS flag if they have suoerior knowledge as to someone’s actual age. If I ask a child to contact Imgur to delete my account they’d block out my porn stash but otherwise treat the request as any other “delete an adult’s account” request.

Would 1798.501. (b) 2A also apply to COPPA? I know this is state versus federal law, but…

Statr law can expand upon federal law but not contradict. And it smells like AB1043 is more “add a more explicit signal of user age” than anything affecting data retention relating to children.

What part do you think is contradictory?
source
- PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works ⁨20⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  
  Yes, but only insomuch as laws that protect minors impose additional constraints on those who have “actual knowledge” that a user is actually a child.
  
  So, if I understand right, basically they assume its correct unless given significant evidence otherwise? So like, if this flag is enabled and I visit a website and don’t directly provide personal information, then they have to assume I am a child under CCPA and thus can’t share my data. Right?
  
  Statr law can expand upon federal law but not contradict. And it smells like AB1043 is more “add a more explicit signal of user age” than anything affecting data retention relating to children.
  
  What part do you think is contradictory?
  
  I was wondering more if they could just argue that it isn’t an reliable metric and thus was ignored for COPPA if it ever came up in Federal court - esspecially if adults end up using the flag for CCPA or Civil Code protections.
  
  source
  - DomeGuy@lemmy.world ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    So, if I understand right, basically they assume its correct unless given significant evidence otherwise?
    
    That’s how it reads to me this morning. Assuming by “given” you meant “they have at all”.
    
    So like, if this flag is enabled and I visit a website and don’t directly provide personal information, then they have to assume I am a child under CCPA and thus can’t share my data. Right?
    
    Based on the CA AG’s page at www.oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa , I don’t see how “the browser reports the user as a child” gives a substantial additional burden on website developers. Presumably, the most they’d have to do to comply is use the flag to change “do you agree for yourself” to “PARENT OR GUARDIAN: Do you agree for the user of this account…”
    
    I’m missing the part where an adult setting their age category incorrectly for themselves would do more than get a stronger porn block and a bunch of “go get your parent” pop-ups instead of “click here if you’re over 18.”
    
    Presumably, if Microsoft and Google and Apple don’t get the Digital Age Assurance Act blocked in court, we could see a broad adoption of it as a way to skip paying for third-party age validation for sites like Reddit, BlueSky, and Lemmy, and all of the porn sites on the internet would just ask for the flag in lieu of their current “do we have a cookie where this user clicked that they’re at least 18” code.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
anticonnor@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
It could certainly be written better to more clearly state this, but I believe the intent is to only limit the data requested and stored for the purpose of age verification. This should not impact data collected or retained for other purposes.

source