HR-1623-119
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Sponsored by Mary Miller (R-IL)
What it does
This bill would require commercial websites that host content deemed harmful to minors — including sexually explicit material and obscenity — to implement technology-based age verification systems to prevent minors from accessing that content. Covered services would be required to verify users' ages, publish their verification process publicly, and apply verification checks to IP addresses including those from known VPNs. The bill would also require these services to implement data security protections for information collected during verification, and would direct the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to conduct regular audits and enforce compliance.
Who benefits
Minors who would be blocked from accessing sexually explicit or obscene content online. Parents and guardians seeking greater control over children's online exposure. Child safety advocacy organizations. Brick-and-mortar adult content retailers who already face stricter in-person age verification requirements and may see a more level competitive landscape. Domestic age-verification technology vendors who would gain a new mandatory market. The FTC, which would gain expanded enforcement authority.
Who is hurt
Operators of adult content websites, who would face compliance costs for implementing and maintaining verification systems. Adult content consumers who value anonymity, as verification systems would require submitting identifying information. Privacy-focused users broadly, given the data collection requirements. VPN service providers whose tools would be specifically targeted. Smaller or independent adult content platforms that may lack resources to implement compliant systems. Users in states with weaker data protection laws, who may face greater risk from the data collected during verification. Civil liberties organizations argue that verification requirements create a chilling effect on legal adult speech.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that children are routinely exposed to hardcore pornography online with no meaningful barrier to access, and that the same society that prohibits minors from purchasing adult magazines in stores has failed to apply equivalent protections to the internet. They contend that age verification technology is mature and widely deployed in other contexts — such as online alcohol and gambling sales — making compliance feasible. Supporters further argue that the bill's data security requirements directly address privacy concerns, and that the FTC's audit and enforcement role ensures accountability rather than leaving compliance to self-regulation.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that mandatory age verification requires users to submit government-issued ID or biometric data to access constitutionally protected legal speech, creating a chilling effect that courts have repeatedly found unconstitutional. They contend that the Supreme Court struck down a nearly identical federal law — the Child Online Protection Act — in Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004) on First Amendment grounds, finding that less restrictive alternatives like filtering software were available. Opponents further argue that centralizing sensitive identity data on adult content platforms creates high-value targets for data breaches, putting users at serious risk of exposure and harm regardless of the bill's security mandates.
Constitutional context
The bill raises significant First Amendment questions: in Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004), the Supreme Court struck down the Child Online Protection Act, which imposed similar access restrictions on adult content, finding that content filtering was a less restrictive means of achieving the government's interest. Under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), Congress has broad authority to regulate commercial internet services, which are clearly interstate in nature per Wickard v. Filburn's aggregation principle. Post-Loper Bright (2024), any FTC rules implementing the bill's requirements would face independent judicial scrutiny rather than deference, potentially narrowing the agency's enforcement discretion.
Checks and balances
Congress would establish the verification mandate and data security requirements; the FTC would gain new enforcement and audit authority over covered platforms; federal courts would serve as a check through constitutional review, particularly under First Amendment doctrine and post-Loper Bright independent scrutiny of any FTC implementing rules.
Historical precedent
The Child Online Protection Act (1998) imposed similar restrictions on commercial online distribution of content harmful to minors and was struck down by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004) on First Amendment grounds; multiple states have enacted analogous age-verification laws since 2022, with federal courts issuing conflicting rulings on their constitutionality.