Thomas Trutschel | Photothek | Getty Images

New U.S laws designed to protect minors are pulling millions of adult Americans into mandatory age-verification gates to access online content, leading to backlash from users and criticism from privacy advocates that a free and open internet is at stake. Roughly half of U.S. states have enacted or are advancing laws requiring platforms — including adult content sites, online gaming services, and social media apps — to block underage users, forcing companies to screen everyone who approaches these digital gates.

“There’s a big spectrum,” said Joe Kaufmann, global head of privacy at Jumio, one of the largest digital identity-verification and authentication platforms. He explained that the patchwork of state laws vary in technical demands and compliance expectations. “The regulations are moving in many different directions at once,” he said.  

Social media company Discord announced plans in February to roll out mandatory age verification globally, which the company said would rely on verification methods designed so facial analysis occurs on a user’s device and submitted data would be deleted immediately. The proposal quickly drew backlash from users concerned about having to submit selfies or government IDs to access certain features, which led Discord to delay the launch until the second half of this year.

“Let me be upfront: we knew this rollout was going to be controversial. Any time you introduce something that touches identity and verification, people are going to have strong feelings,” Discord chief technology officer and co-founder Stanislav Vishnevskiy wrote in a Feb. 24 blog post.

Websites offering adult content, gambling, or financial services often rely on full identity verification that requires scanning a government ID and matching it to a live image. But most of the verification systems powering these checkpoints — often run by specialized identity-verification vendors on behalf of websites — rely on artificial intelligence such as facial recognition and age-estimation models that analyze selfies or video to determine in seconds whether someone is old enough to access content. Social media and lower-risk services may use lighter estimation tools designed to confirm age without permanently storing detailed identity records.  

Vendors say a challenge is balancing safety with how much friction users will tolerate. “We’re in the business of ensuring that you are absolutely keeping minors safe and out and able to let adults in with as little friction as possible,” said Rivka Gewirtz Little, chief growth officer at identity-verification platform Socure. Excessive data collection, she added, creates friction that users resist. 
 
Still, many users perceive mandatory identity checks as invasive. “Having another way to be forced to provide that information is intrusive to people,” said Heidi Howard Tandy, a partner at Berger Singerman who specializes in intellectual property and internet law. Some users may attempt workarounds — including prepaid cards or alternative credentials — or turn to unauthorized distribution channels. “It’s going to cause a piracy situation,” she added. 

Where adult data goes 

In many implementations, verification vendors — not the websites themselves — process and retain the identity information, returning only a pass-fail signal to the platform. 

Gewirtz Little said Socure does not sell verification data and that in lightweight age-estimation scenarios, where platforms use quick facial analysis or other signals rather than government documentation, the company may store little or no information. But in fuller identity-verification contexts, such as gaming and fraud prevention that require ID scans, certain adult verification records may be retained to document compliance. She said Socure can keep some adult verification data for up to three years while following applicable privacy and purging rules.  

Civil liberties’ advocates warn that concentrating large volumes of identity data among a small number of verification vendors can create attractive targets for hackers and government demands. Earlier this year, Discord disclosed a data breach that exposed ID images belonging to approximately 70,000 users through a compromised third-party service, highlighting the security risks associated with storing sensitive identity information. 

In addition, they warn that expanding age-verification systems represent not only a usability challenge but a structural shift in how identity becomes tied to online behavior. Age verification risks tying users’ “most sensitive and immutable data” — names, faces, birthdays, home addresses — to their online activity, according to Molly Buckley, a legislative analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.  “Age verification strikes at the foundation of the free and open internet,” she said.

Even when vendors promise to safeguard personal information, users ultimately rely on contractual terms they rarely read or fully understand. “There’s language in their terms-of-use policies that says if the information is requested by law enforcement, they’ll hand it over. They can’t confirm that they will always forever be the only entity who has all of this information. Everyone needs to understand that their baseline information is not something under their control,” Tandy said. 

As more platforms route age checks through third-party vendors, that concentration of identity data is also creating new legal exposure for the companies that rely on them. “A company is going to have some of that information passing through their own servers,” Tandy said. “And you can’t offload that kind of liability to a third party.” 

Companies can distribute risk through contracts and insurance, she said, but they remain responsible for how identity systems interact with their infrastructure. “What you can do is have really good insurance and require really good insurance from the entities that you’re contracting with,” she said. 

Tandy also cautioned that retention promises can be more complex than they appear. “If they say they’re holding it for three years, that’s the minimum amount of time they’re holding it for,” she said. “I wouldn’t feel comfortable trusting a company that says, ‘We delete everything one day after three years.’ That is not going to happen,” she added. 

Legal battles are not over

Federal and state regulators argue that age-verification laws are primarily a response to documented harms to minors and insist the rules must operate under strict privacy and security safeguards. 

An FTC spokesperson told CNBC that companies must limit how collected information is used. While age-verification technologies can help parents protect children online, the agency said firms are still bound by existing consumer protection rules governing data minimization, retention, and security. The agency pointed to existing rules requiring firms to retain personal information only as long as reasonably necessary and to safeguard its confidentiality and integrity. 

According to Rae Pickett, a spokesperson from the Virginia attorney general’s office — one of the states that has been actively enforcing age-verification laws — officials view strong verification and data-handling standards as inseparable parts of protecting young users and ensuring age-appropriate online experiences. She pointed to litigation against Meta and TikTok as evidence that inadequate safeguards can expose young users to harmful content and experiences. Under the Virginia law, companies collecting verification data cannot use it for purposes beyond age determination and must maintain security practices appropriate to the sensitivity of the information under the state’s Consumer Data Protection Act. 

However, Virginia’s effort suffered a legal setback when a federal court at least temporarily blocked enforcement of its law last week, siding with a First Amendment challenge brought by a trade group representing major social media companies. Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones said in a statement to CNBC after the court decision that the AG’s office “will use every tool available to us to ensure that Virginia’s children are protected from the proven harms of unlimited access to these addictive feeds. We look forward to being able to fully enforce the law to keep families safe.”

Buckley says legislators do not need to sacrifice their constituents’ First Amendment rights and privacy to make a safer internet and address many of the harms these proposals seek to mitigate. In fact, according to the EFF analyst, many lawmakers have recognized these approaches, such as data minimization, in existing age-verification proposals. But if legislators want to meaningfully improve online safety instead of building new systems of surveillance, censorship, and exclusion, she said they should pass a strong, comprehensive federal privacy law that protects and empowers all internet users to control how our data is collected.

‘A permanent feature of online life’

In some countries, age verification laws may already require platforms to use methods like facial age estimation or ID checks, including in the UK, Australia, and soon in Brazil.

Major platforms based in the U.S. are staking out positions on how age verification should be implemented, though not without controversy, as the Discord example suggests, and coming after years of lawsuits alleging weak efforts to keep their sites safe for children. 

Discord said in explaining its delayed global rollout that other than in countries where national laws require certain methods of verification, over 90% of users will never need to verify their age by any methods other than its existing internal safety systems that do not require user action. Though its CTO noted in the recent blog post, “We know many of you believe the right answer is not to do this at all.”

Discord said it is using the additional time this year to add more verification options, including credit cards, more transparency on vendors and technical detail of how age verification will work, and once the system goes into effect, it will publish details on the percentage of users asked to verify age in its existing transparency reports.

Snap, which operates Snapchat, said it supports alternative approaches that reduce the need for platforms to collect identity information directly. “We believe there are better, more privacy-conscious solutions such as mandating age verification at the primary point of entry — the device, operating system, or app store level,” a Snap spokesperson told CNBC. 

Meta and Google did not respond to requests for comment. 

According to Tandy, as more states adopt age-verification mandates and companies race to comply, the infrastructure behind those systems is likely to become a permanent fixture of online life. Taken together, industry leaders say the rapid spread of age-verification laws may push platforms toward systems that verify age once and reuse that credential across services. 

“The way the trend is moving is definitely toward some kind of persistent verification of a user’s age,” Kaufmann said. In other words, a digital proof of age that travels with the user across platforms. 

Tandy said over time, once a system confirms someone’s age, it may not need to ask again. She compared the model to ecosystems such as Disney accounts, where a user’s age is established once and then recognized across its services rather than being rechecked every time they log in, even years later. 

For adults, that means an internet where identity verification is no longer occasional friction but a built-in layer of everyday access.