Josh Withrow, a fellow with the Technology and Innovation Policy team at the R Street Institute, testified before the New Hampshire House Committee on Commerce & Consumer Affairs in opposition to House Bill 1658. The bill would require parental consent and age verification for digital application platforms.
Withrow stated, “While we share the goal of protecting kids and teens from harmful content and other dangers online, we believe that mandatory age verification at the app store level poses several practical and constitutional concerns. These issues outweigh whatever limited good this proposal may achieve.”
He explained that implementing HB 1658 would require New Hampshire residents to provide sensitive personal data, such as government IDs, to major app stores like Google and Apple in order to download apps. Withrow argued that current age estimation technologies are not fully reliable, often forcing users to submit additional documentation like state IDs. He also noted that verifying parental consent is difficult without documentary identification.
“Rather than empowering parents to protect their children from harmful content online, HB 1658 would compromise their privacy and force them to respond to permission requests for any app download regardless of whether age restriction is merited, be it a social media app or a calculator,” Withrow said. He added that requiring developers to obtain parental consent each time they make significant changes to an app could overwhelm parents with notifications.
Withrow pointed out that these measures might not effectively protect children from online risks since young users could still access harmful content through web browsers on their devices.
He referenced ongoing efforts by technology companies to improve parental control tools at various levels—device, browser, and platform—and highlighted the availability of third-party software for more detailed control over children’s device use (https://cei.org/children-online-safety-tools/). Withrow suggested educational initiatives as a better approach for improving online safety for families.
For example, Tennessee has passed legislation mandating online safety education in public schools (https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=HB0825&GA=114), while resources like the Federal Trade Commission’s “Protecting Kids Online” campaign offer guidance on using existing parental controls (https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-use-parental-controls-keep-your-kid-safer-online).
Withrow also raised constitutional concerns about HB 1658. He cited past court decisions striking down similar broad age-gating laws as violations of First Amendment rights because less restrictive alternatives exist. He mentioned both the Supreme Court’s decision in Reno v. ACLU (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/844) and a recent district court ruling against Texas’s App Store Accountability Act (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172869998/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172869998.65.0.pdf).
“Lawmakers would be better off focusing on ways to improve online literacy, both for parents and their children, and encouraging parents to exercise the substantial power they already have to control what content and interactions their kids can access online,” Withrow concluded.
