Block or Reform the Digital Age Assurance Act of 2026 (S. 5090): Don't Let "Privacy Protection" Become Mandatory Device-Level Age Verification

The Digital Age Assurance Act of 2026 (S. 5090) would establish a nationwide framework requiring operating system providers to collect a user's age information, generate age-bracket signals, and provide those signals to apps, browsers, and certain websites under specified circumstances.

Supporters argue that the bill would better protect children online while using privacy-preserving technologies such as age brackets, verifiable credentials, and zero-knowledge proofs.

However, many privacy advocates, technologists, developers, and civil-liberties supporters believe the proposal deserves significant revision—or should be rejected altogether—because it would move age assurance into the operating system itself.

Why We Are Concerned?

We believe Congress should carefully reconsider legislation that would:

• Require operating systems to become the primary source of age signals for apps and websites.
• Create new infrastructure for sharing age-category information across the digital ecosystem.
• Expand compliance burdens for developers, browser providers, operating system vendors, and open-source projects.
• Introduce additional security and privacy risks if new system-level interfaces become targets for abuse.
  Raise important questions regarding anonymous access to lawful information, freedom of expression, and user privacy.
• Potentially increase barriers for independent developers and open-source operating systems.
• Even if age brackets rather than exact birthdates are transmitted, embedding this functionality into the operating system represents a major change to how general-purpose computing devices function.

Constitutional Concerns

The Digital Age Assurance Act of 2026 (S. 5090) raises important constitutional questions that deserve careful consideration by Congress and the courts.

First Amendment

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and the right to receive lawful information.

Critics argue that requiring operating systems to provide age-assurance signals to applications and certain websites could discourage anonymous access to lawful content and encourage platforms to restrict speech more broadly than necessary to reduce legal risk. Some also contend that age-based access systems may have a chilling effect on users seeking information about sensitive topics, including health, politics, religion, or social issues.

Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Some privacy advocates argue that requiring operating system providers to collect age information and generate persistent age-assurance signals creates government-mandated data collection infrastructure that deserves careful constitutional scrutiny. While the bill seeks to limit the data shared, critics contend that embedding identity-related functionality into the operating system raises broader concerns about privacy expectations in personal computing.

Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process of law.

Questions have been raised about whether users would have adequate opportunities to challenge incorrect age classifications or resolve disputes if an age signal is inaccurate. Developers and users alike may face consequences if age information is incorrect, making transparent correction procedures important.

Equal Protection Considerations

Although the Equal Protection Clause applies directly through the Fourteenth Amendment to the states and has been recognized through the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause with respect to the federal government, some critics argue that mandatory age-based restrictions should be narrowly tailored and carefully justified to avoid unnecessarily burdening lawful users.

Why This Matters

Whether or not S. 5090 would ultimately survive constitutional review is a question for the courts. Nevertheless, Congress should carefully consider whether nationwide operating-system-level age assurance strikes the appropriate balance between protecting children and preserving privacy, freedom of expression, innovation, and individual liberty.

When legislation affects nearly every smartphone, tablet, and computer in the country, it deserves the highest level of constitutional scrutiny before becoming law.

There Are Better Ways to Protect Children

Protecting children online and protecting privacy should not be viewed as opposing goals.

Congress should instead prioritize:

• Strong enforcement of existing child privacy laws.
• Holding platforms accountable for harmful design practices.
• Restricting excessive data collection.
• Better parental controls that operate locally on devices.
• Improved digital literacy and online safety education.
• Voluntary, privacy-preserving age verification where appropriate rather than mandatory operating-system-level infrastructure.

What We Ask Congress To Do

We respectfully urge Congress to:

• Block or substantially reform the Digital Age Assurance Act of 2026 (S. 5090).
• Ensure that any child safety legislation minimizes collection and sharing of user data.
• Preserve anonymous access to lawful online speech whenever possible.
• Protect open computing, open-source software, innovation, and user choice.
  Work with privacy experts, security researchers, civil liberties organizations, parents, educators, and technology developers to develop solutions that protect children without unnecessarily expanding device-level identity infrastructure.
• Children deserve meaningful online protections.

Americans also deserve secure devices, strong privacy, freedom of expression, and the ability to use general-purpose computers without unnecessary government-mandated identity infrastructure.

Please sign this petition if you believe Congress should carefully reconsider S. 5090 and pursue child safety solutions that better balance privacy, security, innovation, and civil liberties.

Join the Stop the OS Surveillance Mandate Campaign

If you care about protecting digital privacy, open computing, freedom of expression, and user autonomy, please consider joining the Stop the OS Surveillance Mandate Campaign.

Visit:

stopossurveillancemandate.weebly.com

Learn more about ongoing advocacy, educational resources, and ways to participate in discussions surrounding operating-system-level and app-store-level age assurance proposals.