I write to you as a concerned citizen deeply invested in the intersection of technology, privacy, and family welfare, particularly regarding emerging legislation on age verification across digital platforms. With California’s Digital Age Assurance Act set to take effect on January 1, 2027, and federal proposals like the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) and COPPA 2.0 gaining traction, we stand at a pivotal moment. Policy decisions here could profoundly reshape the digital landscape for years to come.

My intent is to urge a thoughtful recalibration of these efforts—especially H.R. 8250, the Parents Decide Act (introduced April 13, 2026, by Rep. Josh Gottheimer [D-NJ] with Ms. Stefanik as cosponsor). This bill requires operating system providers to verify user ages during setup or account creation, mandates parental verification for users under 18, enables app developers to access age signals, and requires parental controls for minors. Violations fall under FTC enforcement as unfair or deceptive acts.

Politically, these bills reflect a commendable bipartisan push to address genuine parental anxieties amid rapid technological change and real online risks to children. However, scientifically and from a software engineering perspective, mandates for age verification at the operating system level—as in both California’s law and H.R. 8250—pose significant implementation challenges. Requiring age classification during device setup or account creation, even for open-source systems like Linux, demands intricate software integrations. These could introduce vulnerabilities, including data breaches, algorithmic biases in age estimation tools (such as facial recognition or behavioral analysis), and complexities around shared devices or multi-user households. Regulations must address secure handling of birth dates and app integration, yet the hands-on realities of building robust, privacy-preserving systems highlight the gap between legislative intent and technical feasibility.

To bridge this gap, I strongly encourage consulting with congressional colleagues who possess direct backgrounds in computer science and software development. Their practitioner insights are invaluable:

• Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA) — a video game developer with degrees in engineering and artificial intelligence from Caltech and UCLA, who owns a game studio and brings deep experience in system design and AI.
• Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) — who holds a Bachelor of Science in computer science from Stanford and has long engaged with cybersecurity and tech policy.
• Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) — currently pursuing advanced studies in machine learning while serving on AI task forces.
• Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) — a former computer programmer with an associate degree in computing and information technology.

(Additional voices like Rep. Steve Scalise with early systems engineering experience also merit inclusion.) These members’ cross-party affiliations and real-world immersion in coding, AI ethics, system architecture, and innovation equip them to evaluate mechanisms such as zero-knowledge proofs for privacy-preserving age checks or federated learning to minimize data exposure. History in cybersecurity shows that policies crafted without such input often lead to unintended consequences: widespread user circumvention, market fragmentation, compliance burdens that favor big tech over American innovators, and weakened security overall.

Even with expert input, the broader focus must shift from expansive, state- or OS-level regulations toward genuinely empowering parents. Well-intentioned interventions risk overreach that encroaches on family autonomy and privacy, normalizing surveillance and eroding trust in digital ecosystems. Research in human-computer interaction and behavioral economics demonstrates that restrictive mandates frequently fail due to adaptive user behaviors (e.g., easy workarounds or VPNs), whereas tools enhancing parental agency—customizable controls, family-integrated AI content moderators, and digital literacy education—produce more sustainable, effective outcomes. This approach aligns politically with conservative values of limited government and liberal emphases on individual rights and family decision-making.

The risks of prioritizing mandates over parental tools are clear. Mandatory collection of dates of birth or biometrics at the OS level could create vast, centralized troves of sensitive data vulnerable to hacks or misuse. Smaller developers and open-source projects might face prohibitive compliance costs, consolidating power among a few giants and hindering innovation in educational software, secure messaging, or creative tools. Underserved communities could encounter new access barriers, widening digital divides. In contrast, incentives for voluntary adoption of parent-centric solutions or public-private partnerships for better tools could foster healthier online environments without these drawbacks—grounded in evidence that nudges and empowerment outperform top-down controls.

In exploring these political dynamics and scientific realities, it becomes evident that consulting representatives with authentic technology experience is not merely prudent but essential. Their perspectives can illuminate practical paths to child safety that respect privacy, spur innovation, reinforce parental roles, and avoid pitfalls of state dependence. I urge you to engage these knowledgeable members in refining bills like H.R. 8250, redirecting emphasis toward empowering families with flexible, science-backed tools rather than rigid OS-level mandates.

Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.