AB-1043
Consumer Protection

Age verification signals: software applications and online services.

Enrolled
CA
2025-2026 Regular Session
0
0
Track

Key Takeaways

  • Mandates real-time age-bracket signals to developers.
  • OSs must collect birth date or age at setup and provide signals by January 1, 2027.
  • Imposes penalties up to $2,500 per negligent and $7,500 per intentional child; enforcement by the Attorney General.
  • Operative date 1/1/2027; July 1 transitions; exemptions for broadband, telecom, and physical products.

Summary

Assembly Member Wicks, along with principal coauthor Senator Umberg and several colleagues, advances a Digital Age Assurance Act that would require operating system providers and covered application stores to furnish real-time age-bracket signals to developers at the moment an application is downloaded and launched, with a rollout targeted for January 1, 2027. The core objective is to convey, in a standardized form, whether a user falls into one of four age brackets, enabling apps to tailor their behavior in alignment with age-related protections and settings.

The act creates a new Civil Code title and defines key terms to govern the signaling framework. An “account holder” is an adult or a parent/guardian of a user under 18 in California. “Age bracket data” comprises nonpersonal data indicating whether the user is under 13, at least 13 but under 16, at least 16 but under 18, or at least 18. A “covered application store” distributes and facilitates downloads of third-party applications but excludes stores that distribute extensions or apps that run exclusively within a host application. A “signal” is the age-bracket data transmitted via a real-time API from the OS to an application, and a “developer” is the owner or controller of an application. The obligation framework centers on the OS providing an accessible account-setup interface to collect birth date or age and delivering a signal to requesting developers; developers must request signals at download and launch and shall treat the signal as the primary indicator of a user’s age unless internal information indicates a different age.

Transitional provisions and enforcement details define how the regime takes effect. For devices with account setup completed before the operative date, the OS must provide the age-indication interface by mid-2027. If an app updated after 2026 was downloaded before 2027 and the developer has not yet requested a signal, the developer must request one from a covered store by mid-2027. Violations may lead to injunctive relief and civil penalties up to $2,500 per affected child for negligent violations or up to $7,500 per affected child for intentional violations, with the Attorney General enforcing remedies. The act includes a good-faith defense for OS providers or stores that make a reasonable compliance effort, and it imposes nondiscrimination and anti-competitive safeguards, prohibiting use of signals to undermine third parties or to privilege the provider’s own services. It explicitly operates in addition to, and does not modify, the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, while offering severability, and it preserves exemptions for broadband internet access, certain telecommunications services, and the delivery or use of a physical product.

Framing the broader context, the proposal positions age signaling as a privacy- and design-focused tool within California’s consumer-protection regime. The framework aims to minimize data collection to what is necessary, restrict cross-party sharing of signals, and ensure that changes in age information are respected across platforms. By requiring parity in restrictions and prohibiting anticompetitive uses of signaling data, the measure engages with ongoing debates about platform power, data portability, and minors’ protections, while clearly noting its additive relationship to existing laws. Stakeholders—including OS providers, covered stores, developers, and guardians of minors—face implementation timelines, potential compliance costs, and a new enforcement dynamic centered on the Attorney General’s office, with the intent of aligning age-verification practices with specified design and data-use constraints.

Key Dates

Vote on Assembly Floor
Assembly Floor
Vote on Assembly Floor
AB 1043 WICKS Concurrence in Senate Amendments
Vote on Senate Floor
Senate Floor
Vote on Senate Floor
Assembly 3rd Reading AB1043 Wicks et al. By Umberg
Senate Appropriations Hearing
Senate Committee
Senate Appropriations Hearing
Do pass
Senate Appropriations Hearing
Senate Committee
Senate Appropriations Hearing
Placed on suspense file
Senate Judiciary Hearing
Senate Committee
Senate Judiciary Hearing
Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]
Vote on Assembly Floor
Assembly Floor
Vote on Assembly Floor
AB 1043 Wicks Assembly Third Reading
Assembly Appropriations Hearing
Assembly Committee
Assembly Appropriations Hearing
Do pass as amended
Assembly Judiciary Hearing
Assembly Committee
Assembly Judiciary Hearing
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
Assembly Privacy And Consumer Protection Hearing
Assembly Committee
Assembly Privacy And Consumer Protection Hearing
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary]
Introduced
Assembly Floor
Introduced
Read first time. To print.

Contacts

Profile
Ash KalraD
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Not Contacted
Not Contacted
Profile
Rebecca Bauer-KahanD
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Not Contacted
Not Contacted
Profile
Buffy WicksD
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Not Contacted
Not Contacted
Profile
Tom UmbergD
Senator
Bill Author
Not Contacted
Not Contacted
Profile
Akilah Weber PiersonD
Senator
Bill Author
Not Contacted
Not Contacted
0 of 11 row(s) selected.
Page 1 of 3
Select All Legislators
Profile
Ash KalraD
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Profile
Rebecca Bauer-KahanD
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Profile
Buffy WicksD
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Profile
Tom UmbergD
Senator
Bill Author
Profile
Akilah Weber PiersonD
Senator
Bill Author
Profile
Juan AlanisR
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Profile
Diane DixonR
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Profile
Josh HooverR
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Profile
Josh LowenthalD
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Profile
John HarabedianD
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Profile
Catherine StefaniD
Assemblymember
Bill Author

Get Involved

Act Now!

Email the authors or create an email template to send to all relevant legislators.

Introduced By

Buffy Wicks
Buffy WicksD
California State Assembly Member
Co-Authors
Tom Umberg
Tom UmbergD
California State Senator
Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Rebecca Bauer-KahanD
California State Assembly Member
Diane Dixon
Diane DixonR
California State Assembly Member
John Harabedian
John HarabedianD
California State Assembly Member
Josh Hoover
Josh HooverR
California State Assembly Member
Ash Kalra
Ash KalraD
California State Assembly Member
Catherine Stefani
Catherine StefaniD
California State Assembly Member
Juan Alanis
Juan AlanisR
California State Assembly Member
Josh Lowenthal
Josh LowenthalD
California State Assembly Member
Akilah Weber Pierson
Akilah Weber PiersonD
California State Senator
70% progression
Bill has passed both houses in identical form and is being prepared for the Governor (9/13/2025)

Latest Voting History

September 13, 2025
PASS
Assembly Floor
Vote on Assembly Floor
AyesNoesNVRTotalResult
770380PASS

Key Takeaways

  • Mandates real-time age-bracket signals to developers.
  • OSs must collect birth date or age at setup and provide signals by January 1, 2027.
  • Imposes penalties up to $2,500 per negligent and $7,500 per intentional child; enforcement by the Attorney General.
  • Operative date 1/1/2027; July 1 transitions; exemptions for broadband, telecom, and physical products.

Get Involved

Act Now!

Email the authors or create an email template to send to all relevant legislators.

Introduced By

Buffy Wicks
Buffy WicksD
California State Assembly Member
Co-Authors
Tom Umberg
Tom UmbergD
California State Senator
Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Rebecca Bauer-KahanD
California State Assembly Member
Diane Dixon
Diane DixonR
California State Assembly Member
John Harabedian
John HarabedianD
California State Assembly Member
Josh Hoover
Josh HooverR
California State Assembly Member
Ash Kalra
Ash KalraD
California State Assembly Member
Catherine Stefani
Catherine StefaniD
California State Assembly Member
Juan Alanis
Juan AlanisR
California State Assembly Member
Josh Lowenthal
Josh LowenthalD
California State Assembly Member
Akilah Weber Pierson
Akilah Weber PiersonD
California State Senator

Summary

Assembly Member Wicks, along with principal coauthor Senator Umberg and several colleagues, advances a Digital Age Assurance Act that would require operating system providers and covered application stores to furnish real-time age-bracket signals to developers at the moment an application is downloaded and launched, with a rollout targeted for January 1, 2027. The core objective is to convey, in a standardized form, whether a user falls into one of four age brackets, enabling apps to tailor their behavior in alignment with age-related protections and settings.

The act creates a new Civil Code title and defines key terms to govern the signaling framework. An “account holder” is an adult or a parent/guardian of a user under 18 in California. “Age bracket data” comprises nonpersonal data indicating whether the user is under 13, at least 13 but under 16, at least 16 but under 18, or at least 18. A “covered application store” distributes and facilitates downloads of third-party applications but excludes stores that distribute extensions or apps that run exclusively within a host application. A “signal” is the age-bracket data transmitted via a real-time API from the OS to an application, and a “developer” is the owner or controller of an application. The obligation framework centers on the OS providing an accessible account-setup interface to collect birth date or age and delivering a signal to requesting developers; developers must request signals at download and launch and shall treat the signal as the primary indicator of a user’s age unless internal information indicates a different age.

Transitional provisions and enforcement details define how the regime takes effect. For devices with account setup completed before the operative date, the OS must provide the age-indication interface by mid-2027. If an app updated after 2026 was downloaded before 2027 and the developer has not yet requested a signal, the developer must request one from a covered store by mid-2027. Violations may lead to injunctive relief and civil penalties up to $2,500 per affected child for negligent violations or up to $7,500 per affected child for intentional violations, with the Attorney General enforcing remedies. The act includes a good-faith defense for OS providers or stores that make a reasonable compliance effort, and it imposes nondiscrimination and anti-competitive safeguards, prohibiting use of signals to undermine third parties or to privilege the provider’s own services. It explicitly operates in addition to, and does not modify, the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, while offering severability, and it preserves exemptions for broadband internet access, certain telecommunications services, and the delivery or use of a physical product.

Framing the broader context, the proposal positions age signaling as a privacy- and design-focused tool within California’s consumer-protection regime. The framework aims to minimize data collection to what is necessary, restrict cross-party sharing of signals, and ensure that changes in age information are respected across platforms. By requiring parity in restrictions and prohibiting anticompetitive uses of signaling data, the measure engages with ongoing debates about platform power, data portability, and minors’ protections, while clearly noting its additive relationship to existing laws. Stakeholders—including OS providers, covered stores, developers, and guardians of minors—face implementation timelines, potential compliance costs, and a new enforcement dynamic centered on the Attorney General’s office, with the intent of aligning age-verification practices with specified design and data-use constraints.

70% progression
Bill has passed both houses in identical form and is being prepared for the Governor (9/13/2025)

Key Dates

Vote on Assembly Floor
Assembly Floor
Vote on Assembly Floor
AB 1043 WICKS Concurrence in Senate Amendments
Vote on Senate Floor
Senate Floor
Vote on Senate Floor
Assembly 3rd Reading AB1043 Wicks et al. By Umberg
Senate Appropriations Hearing
Senate Committee
Senate Appropriations Hearing
Do pass
Senate Appropriations Hearing
Senate Committee
Senate Appropriations Hearing
Placed on suspense file
Senate Judiciary Hearing
Senate Committee
Senate Judiciary Hearing
Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]
Vote on Assembly Floor
Assembly Floor
Vote on Assembly Floor
AB 1043 Wicks Assembly Third Reading
Assembly Appropriations Hearing
Assembly Committee
Assembly Appropriations Hearing
Do pass as amended
Assembly Judiciary Hearing
Assembly Committee
Assembly Judiciary Hearing
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
Assembly Privacy And Consumer Protection Hearing
Assembly Committee
Assembly Privacy And Consumer Protection Hearing
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary]
Introduced
Assembly Floor
Introduced
Read first time. To print.

Latest Voting History

September 13, 2025
PASS
Assembly Floor
Vote on Assembly Floor
AyesNoesNVRTotalResult
770380PASS

Contacts

Profile
Ash KalraD
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Not Contacted
Not Contacted
Profile
Rebecca Bauer-KahanD
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Not Contacted
Not Contacted
Profile
Buffy WicksD
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Not Contacted
Not Contacted
Profile
Tom UmbergD
Senator
Bill Author
Not Contacted
Not Contacted
Profile
Akilah Weber PiersonD
Senator
Bill Author
Not Contacted
Not Contacted
0 of 11 row(s) selected.
Page 1 of 3
Select All Legislators
Profile
Ash KalraD
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Profile
Rebecca Bauer-KahanD
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Profile
Buffy WicksD
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Profile
Tom UmbergD
Senator
Bill Author
Profile
Akilah Weber PiersonD
Senator
Bill Author
Profile
Juan AlanisR
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Profile
Diane DixonR
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Profile
Josh HooverR
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Profile
Josh LowenthalD
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Profile
John HarabedianD
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Profile
Catherine StefaniD
Assemblymember
Bill Author