Age Verification Policy

This internal policy sets out how our business verifies ages in two contexts: online services and marketing content. It highlights that age verification requirements vary by location and that employees must follow local laws and update practices accordingly. For companies involved in adult content, it flags Title 18 Section 2257 record-keeping rules. The core framework aims to protect children online, limit access by underage users, and provide consumer protection while respecting data privacy and other relevant considerations.

For software and web teams, the policy directs the use of an age verification system for age-restricted areas and transactions. When users seek to gain access to websites or order alcohol, tobacco, gambling, or other adult products, the site should present a clear age gate. A typical age verification process asks for a date of birth and checks it against the legal age threshold, then allows or denies access.

Pages hosting such content should display required legal notices. This is a practical age verification strategy that many online platforms, social media companies, and online providers use to determine users' ages and comply with age verification legislation and age verification mandates.

Teams should choose age verification tools and techniques that align with applicable law and business risk. Options range from simple self-declaration to identity verification using government-issued ID or a credit card, and third-party services acting as the verifying entity. More robust requirements may include an age check certification scheme.

Effective age verification balances accuracy, data security, and user privacy. Age assurance methods such as facial age estimation, zero-knowledge proof, or AI analysis can reduce the amount of associated personal data collected while still verifying user age. Each verification system entails tradeoffs; the goal is to achieve effective age verification without creating unnecessary surveillance systems or undermining anonymity online. Record retention should be limited to what the law and business needs require to reduce the risk of private data misuse.

For advertising and marketing, the policy requires verifying the age of all models and actors. Staff must request and document two forms of valid identification, such as a driver's license, birth certificate, passport, or other government ID accepted where the person resides. When minors are involved, some laws may require parental consent before using images for commercial purposes.

Employees are responsible for understanding their obligations, keeping accurate records, and consulting a manager or Human Resources if questions arise. This approach supports compliance with developing age verification legislation in multiple jurisdictions and helps prevent minors from appearing in age-restricted materials.

Across departments, the policy emphasizes that age verification involves deciding on appropriate verification systems, implementing a consistent verification process, and maintaining documentation. It recognizes that laws change and that social media access and online spaces remain under scrutiny at the federal level and in other states, so procedures should be reviewed and updated to remain compliant.

Proposal Kit can streamline authoring and maintaining policies like this. Its document assembly and extensive template library help teams establish clear procedures, while the AI Writer assists in writing policy language and explanatory materials. For implementation projects, automated line-item quoting supports planning and budgeting. These tools make it easier to create, update, and deploy consistent age verification documentation across the organization.

Expanding on the policy's impact, online age verification has quickly become a cross-industry issue affecting social media platforms, adult websites, and alcohol and gambling websites. Policymakers in the federal government and abroad are pitching and testing different age verification regimes under new laws like the UK's Online Safety Act and bills introduced by the Australian government and the European Union, all seeking to protect kids online. In the U.S., debates reference the Child Online Protection Act and the Communications Decency Act, with First Amendment and Amendment concerns raised by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, and industry group NetChoice. The Supreme Court and other courts will likely shape the scope of any regulation, as elected or appointed policymakers assess possible enforcement mechanisms and the extent to which rules must be narrowly tailored to avoid burdening protected speech.

For businesses, one prominent decision point is selecting a certain age threshold and age requirement for access to content or services. Online age checks commonly begin with age gates that require users seeking to access websites to verify their age. Companies can rely on a range of age verification techniques: hard identifiers like a government ID, social security number, or credit card information; age estimation; or third-party companies that verify user age using available technology and transactional data.

Each option entails tradeoffs in accuracy, costs, online privacy, data protection, and security concerns. A toothless age verification approach (for instance, only drop-down menus directing a user to select a birth year) may fail to deny access to underage individuals. Conversely, aggressive approaches can undermine anonymity online or collect more private data than necessary. Policies should explain the verification process, identify the entities involved, and specify what data the organization will potentially store, for what age verification purposes, and for how long.

Organizations should also weigh enforcement mechanisms and affirmative defense considerations. Maintaining clear records for models and actors, requiring parental consent where applicable, and documenting the verification process can help demonstrate compliance if a government agency investigates claims of harmful content involving kids. As new legislation emerges, such as state social media act proposals, industry-aligned groups have expressed concern about privacy risks, while critics argue that such lenient approaches do little to protect young people.

News reports by outlets like The Wall Street Journal and The Guardian highlight that tech companies, trade associations, and civil society disagree on effectiveness, with the Electronic Frontier Foundation alleging risks to human rights and online privacy, and industry group NetChoice alleging overbroad rules harming young people's access to protected speech. Some jurisdictions test digital IDs (for example, a wallet), and utility companies or gambling websites have begun implementing stricter checks; however, the vast majority of internet sites still figure out practice and policy solution details.

Operationally, businesses should address fake ID risks, specify criteria for users under the age of majority, and clarify whether to require users to upload other information to confirm identity or verify their age. Policies should assess whether ge verification systems or third-party services are needed, how to implement age gates across categories of content (such as pornography and other age-restricted materials), and how to balance benefits, potential harm, and effectiveness. Reports from organizations suggest two central questions remain key: which verification systems are sufficient under age verification law, and what privacy concerns are worth making a stand over. The answer will differ by service, risk, and jurisdiction, and it may change as bills are introduced, regulation is passed, and policy ideas evolve.

Proposal Kit can help teams formulate answers and document strategies. Its document assembly, AI Writer, and extensive template library make it easier to create clear procedures, write guidance for different ways to verify user age, and outline roles for parents, managers, and providers. Automated line-item quoting helps plan the effort to implement verification across accounts and content categories. These structured materials support consistent, update-ready documentation without dictating any specific technology choice.

It is increasingly clear that no single age verification regime or age verification technology uniform standard exists, and that creates two questions for businesses: how to verify age with sufficient certainty and how to minimize data collection while protecting kids. Bills that introduce legislation at the federal and state levels continue to add provisions and restrictions, with the first state experiments now echoed in Texas and elsewhere. Each bill and policy proposal is a separate matter, with a different provision or enforcement approach discussed by elected officials, regulators, and trade association stakeholders.

Operationally, verifying an individual user should not necessarily form part of full identity proofing; it can focus only on the age attribute. Yet any approach will entail tradeoffs. Age gates that rely on a user to self-attest invite some users to lie, while document checks or account-based controls require companies to obtain other information and can increase data collection risk.

Different entities may be involved-platforms like Google and adult sites, third-party verifiers, marketing teams-so clarity about roles and the ability to control how data is used and deleted is critical. Policies should specify which types of content require higher assurance, how to handle fake ID documents, what to do when users seek to access content but cannot meet the age requirement, and how long to retain records by default.

From a governance perspective, several policy ideas are on the table. An effective act of compliance will define what data to collect, how to segregate transactional records, and which technical tests to apply before granting access. A paper examines lessons from the past and suggests that self-declaration alone is insufficient.

Another report and paper focus on the link between harmful or illegal content and the mental development and health of young users, suggesting that tighter controls may serve the public interest. At the same time, the Electronic Frontier Foundation alleges that some fiercely criticized proposals risk raising similar privacy concerns across jurisdictions, while the industry group NetChoice alleges that certain bills impose burdens on speech. Trade association comments often highlight ethics, online privacy, and human rights considerations. Courts will weigh evidence about effectiveness, and future cases may turn on whether a provision is narrowly tailored to its subject and use case.

Practically, businesses should map who is subject to which rule, identify the categories of content at issue, and define the verification flow step by step. A clear policy should explain which restrictions apply to which services, specifically what an operator will obtain from a user, when to deny access, and how to handle edge circumstances. Additionally, organizations should assess the value of logs for audit purposes versus the risk of keeping users exposed through unnecessary collection. Over the course of conduct and implementation, teams typically refine strategies, shifting focus from broad rules to targeted controls, and update documentation as new evidence emerges, ultimately aiming to lead with a balanced approach that can adapt to the future.

Proposal Kit can streamline this documentation effort. Teams can use its document assembly, AI Writer, and template library to record policy choices, outline verification criteria for different entities, and capture implementation steps. Automated line-item quoting helps estimate costs and plan phased rollouts, suggesting a practical path from policy ideas to an operational, compliant age verification program.

How to write my Age Verification Policy document - The Narrative

How to Build a Legal Contract with Proposal Kit

This video illustrates how to create a legal contract using the Proposal Pack Wizard software. It also shows how to create a proposal with an invoice and contract at the same time.