Alcoholic beverages: minors.

Assembly Member Flora’s measure ties the use of active age-verification technology to the evidentiary standards governing alcohol sales to minors, adding a rule that a device’s failure to identify a false identification can be admitted as evidence in prosecutions or licensing actions, provided the identification is bona fide, was physically inspected, appears legitimate, and matches the customer’s appearance.

Core changes to the age-verification framework include updates to what constitutes bona fide evidence of majority and identity—government-issued documents, including driver’s licenses, passports, and military IDs, with name, date of birth, description, and a photo. The bill preserves a defense for licensees who relied on bona fide evidence or on a biometric system in transactions or related activities, and it requires that a biometric system review bona fide evidence to verify and authenticate its validity. A new provision specifies that the use of an active age-verification software or device to establish a purchaser’s age, if such a device fails to identify a false ID, shall be admissible as evidence in a criminal proceeding or in licensing actions, so long as the identification meets the bona fide criteria, was physically inspected, seemed legitimate, and matched the customer’s appearance. The definitions section clarifies terms: “biometrics,” “biometric system,” and “use of an active age verification software or an age verification device,” with the device described as scanning the magnetic strip or barcode on the bona fide identification to verify stored data.

Regulatory and enforcement implications accompany these changes. Licensees and the California Alcoholic Beverage Control framework would operate under a clarified evidentiary regime that treats device performance—specifically, a device’s failure to detect a false ID—as part of prosecutions or licensing proceedings, alongside the existing defenses to rely on bona fide evidence or biometrics. The bill references existing provisions governing applicable defenses and license actions, and it adds a specific evidentiary rule about device failure within that context. Implementation considerations include potential costs for licensees to adopt or maintain active verification technologies, and for the state to regulate and enforce device-related evidence, with no explicit new appropriation provided. The legislation also notes a fiscal-committee review requirement, but there is no explicit operative date stated in the text, leaving timing to regulatory guidance or future enactment.

Broader context and policy considerations center on formalizing how verification technology fits into age-restriction enforcement for alcoholic beverages. The measure establishes a defined set of bona fide documents, clarifies the role of biometrics and verification devices, and delineates how device performance can influence enforcement outcomes under the existing framework of related provisions. Privacy, data-security, and retention aspects are not addressed within the bill text, suggesting that these areas would likely be addressed in future guidance or related regulations. The changes thus create a more explicit evidentiary pathway for device-based verification while preserving existing defenses and aligning enforcement practices with the use of contemporary verification technologies.