The Growing Threat to Online Freedom: Why Age Verification Mandates Like the GUARD Act Fail to Protect Kids – and Harm Everyone
For years, the promise of a safer internet for children has been used to justify increasingly restrictive legislation. But a closer look reveals a troubling trend: proposed laws like the GUARD Act and KOSA aren’t about genuine child safety. They’re about imposing broad surveillance, stifling free expression, and consolidating power in the hands of a few large tech companies.
As digital rights advocates, we’ve been sounding the alarm throughout 2025. Here’s what you need to know about these dangerous proposals and why fighting them is crucial for the future of the internet.
The GUARD Act: A Wolf in Child Safety Clothing
The GUARD Act, despite its well-intentioned name, is fundamentally an age-gating mandate. This means it would require nearly all public-facing AI chatbots – from customer service tools to search assistants – to verify the age of their users.
This isn’t a simple task. In practice, it would force AI companies to collect sensitive personal data, perhaps compromising your privacy. It also risks blocking teenagers from accessing valuable digital tools they use daily. We detailed these concerns back in November, highlighting the potential for widespread disruption and harm.
Why These Laws Fall Short
Like KOSA, the GUARD Act would ultimately make the internet less free, less private, and less safe for everyone.Here’s a breakdown of the core issues:
* Consolidation of Power: These laws favor large tech companies with the resources to comply with complex age verification requirements, effectively crushing smaller developers and innovation.
* Chilled Speech: The threat of massive fines discourages open discussion and expression online.
* Disproportionate Impact: Vulnerable groups, who frequently enough rely on anonymity and accessible online tools, would be disproportionately harmed.
* False Promise of Safety: Age verification doesn’t address the root causes of online harm and can even create new risks.
We urged lawmakers to reject the GUARD Act and instead focus on policies that prioritize transparency, user options, and comprehensive data privacy for all. You can learn more about comprehensive privacy solutions here.
The Flawed Logic Behind Age Verification
These legislative efforts are built on a series of deeply flawed assumptions:
- Age-gating is the solution: The idea that heavily monitoring or entirely removing young people from the internet will keep them safe.
- State control over expression: The belief that the government should determine the value of your online content, rather than you.
- Privacy is expendable: The acceptance that censorship and surveillance are worth sacrificing user privacy, anonymity, and free expression.
These assumptions are not only misguided but demonstrably harmful.
Who really Benefits?
It’s crucial to understand who stands to gain from these mandates.Age verification isn’t a public service; it’s a potential windfall for:
* Big Tech: Companies with the resources to navigate complex regulations.
* Age Verification Vendors: Private companies selling identity verification services.
* AI Companies: Those positioned to profit from the increased data collection.
* Politicians: Seeking credit for “solving” online safety without addressing the underlying issues.
we’ve extensively documented the harms of age verification, notably for LGBTQ+ individuals seeking abortion facts and other sensitive resources (read more here and here). You can find a comprehensive overview of the communities impacted here. And importantly, we’ve exposed how these bills ultimately serve corporate interests ([learn more](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/09/age-verification-windfall-
