I hadn't thought about GitHub -I'm guessing the authors of the bill didn't either - but you're right, that is somewhat concerning. Still, I don't think it's the end of the world...
> The requirement is also that developers will request the signal. No scoping to developers that have a reason to care?
I don't see that requirement. Here's the sum total of the developer's responsibilities (emphasis added):
> A developer with actual knowledge that a user is a child via receipt of a signal regarding a user’s age shall, to the extent technically feasible, provide readily available features for parents to support a child user with respect to the child user’s use of the service and as appropriate given the risks that arise from use of the application, including features to do all of the following:
> (A) Help manage which accounts are affirmatively linked to the user under 18 years of age.
> (B) Manage the delivery of age-appropriate content.
> (C) Limit the amount of time that the user who is 18 years of age spends daily on application.
It would be nice if it had specific carve outs for things that aren't expected to interact with this system, but it seems like they're leaving it up to court judgment instead, with just enough wiggle room in the phrasing to make that possible.
If your application doesn't have a concept of "accounts", then A is obviously moot. If you don't deliver age-inappropriate content, then B is moot. The only thing that can matter is C, but I'd expect that (a) nobody is going to complain about the amount of time their kids are spending on Vim and (b) the OS would just provide that control at a higher level.
> (b) (1) A developer shall request a signal with respect to a particular user from an operating system provider or a covered application store when the application is downloaded and launched.
> (b) If an application last updated with updates on or after January 1, 2026, was downloaded to a device before January 1, 2027, and the developer has not requested a signal with respect to the user of the device on which the application was downloaded, the developer shall request a signal from a covered application store with respect to that user before July 1, 2027.
Application developers are required to request an age signal from the operating system.
> (c) “Application” means a software application that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device that can access a covered application store or download an application.
So applications are any program that runs on any computer with the capability to install software from an online source. Ergo, a program like `sort` must request an age signal when it runs.
The bill is clearly thinking in terms of the two big phone monopolists while ignoring computers that are meant to act as useful tools (which contain thousands of programs from tens of thousands of authors and which have no business caring about what "store" they came from or what date they were installed on or anything about the user running them), but it explicitly says it applies to general purpose computers.
A massive improvement would be to say this only applies when there is an actual commercial store involved, and only place requirements on developers to do something if they would have some other requirement they need to comply with. And also realize that lots of applications are not meant to have the user there the whole time. How are batch jobs or interpreters like `python ` that you might leave running overnight on a job supposed to deal with the time limit? This bill is entirely focused on toys at the expense of computers. It should just place requirements on the actual companies that are causing the issues (social media/adtech, porn, gambling games, etc.)
Your store doesn't distribute social media apps, gambling, porn, etc. and just has things like text editors, music players, PDF readers, etc? No requirements should be needed. You develop a workout tracker? No requirement should be needed.
> The requirement is also that developers will request the signal. No scoping to developers that have a reason to care?
I don't see that requirement. Here's the sum total of the developer's responsibilities (emphasis added):
> A developer with actual knowledge that a user is a child via receipt of a signal regarding a user’s age shall, to the extent technically feasible, provide readily available features for parents to support a child user with respect to the child user’s use of the service and as appropriate given the risks that arise from use of the application, including features to do all of the following:
> (A) Help manage which accounts are affirmatively linked to the user under 18 years of age.
> (B) Manage the delivery of age-appropriate content.
> (C) Limit the amount of time that the user who is 18 years of age spends daily on application.
It would be nice if it had specific carve outs for things that aren't expected to interact with this system, but it seems like they're leaving it up to court judgment instead, with just enough wiggle room in the phrasing to make that possible.
If your application doesn't have a concept of "accounts", then A is obviously moot. If you don't deliver age-inappropriate content, then B is moot. The only thing that can matter is C, but I'd expect that (a) nobody is going to complain about the amount of time their kids are spending on Vim and (b) the OS would just provide that control at a higher level.