WASHINGTON, Aug 14 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Thursday to put on hold a Mississippi law requiring that users of social media platforms verify their age and that minors have parental consent in a challenge by a trade group whose members include Meta's (META.O), Facebook, Alphabet's (GOOGL.O), YouTube and Snapchat (SNAP.N).

The justices denied a request by NetChoice to block the law while the Washington-based tech industry trade association's legal challenge to the law, which it argues violates the U.S. Constitution's protections against government abridgement of free speech, plays out in lower courts.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a statement about the court's order said the Mississippi law was likely unconstitutional, but that NetChoice had not met the high bar to block the measure at this early stage of the case. In a statement, Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said Kavanaugh's view "makes clear that NetChoice will ultimately succeed" in its challenge. Taske called the Supreme Court's order "an unfortunate procedural delay."

The Mississippi attorney general's office in a statement welcomed the Supreme Court's order to leave the state law in place "while the case proceeds in a way that permits thoughtful consideration of these important issues." NetChoice turned to the Supreme Court after the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals let the law take effect even though a judge found it likely runs afoul of the First Amendment.

NetChoice sued in federal court in 2024 in a bid to invalidate the law, which was passed unanimously in the state legislature amid concern by...

"It would be impossible for the Web to perform the age verification necessary."

Really? YouTube does not agree...

YouTube's AI Age Verification Program

YouTube's new AI-powered age verification system, rolled out in the US starting August 13, 2025, aims to estimate whether a user is over or under 18 by analyzing their viewing habits, search history, account longevity, and other behavioral signals. This initiative is part of YouTube's effort to enhance protections for younger users and comply with regulations like the U.S. Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPIA) and similar laws globally, such as the UK's Online Safety Act. Below, we address the program's functionality, accuracy, privacy implications, and how users can contest the algorithmic age determination.

How the Program Works

YouTube's AI model interprets various signals to infer a user's age, including:

Videos Watched and Searched: The types and categories of videos a user engages with (e.g., animated series vs. mature content).
Account Longevity: How long the account has been active, with older accounts more likely assumed to belong to adults.
Behavioral Patterns: While not explicitly detailed, this may include interaction patterns like commenting frequency or language used, though YouTube's announcements focus primarily on viewing and search data.

If the AI flags a user as under 18, YouTube automatically applies age-appropriate restrictions, such as:

Disabling personalized advertising.
Activating digital wellbeing tools (e.g., "take a break" reminders, bedtime notifications).
Limiting exposure to certain content, like repetitive or problematic videos.
Restricting access to age-restricted content (e.g., videos with violence or explicit material).

The system overrides the birthdate provided in the user's account, prioritizing AI-driven estimates over self-reported information. YouTube has been testing this technology in other markets (e.g., the UK and Australia) and claims it performs well, though specific success metrics are not publicly detailed.

Accuracy of the Program

The accuracy of YouTube's AI age estimation is uncertain due to limited transparency about the model's performance and the complexity of inferring age from behavioral data. Several factors suggest potential inaccuracies:

Behavioral Ambiguity: Adults who watch content typically associated with younger audiences (e.g., animated series, gaming reviews) or parents using shared devices with their children may be misclassified as minors. For example, a 30-year-old watching cartoons could be flagged as under 18.
Contextual Limitations: The AI relies on patterns like video categories and account age, but these are imperfect proxies. A newly created account doesn't necessarily indicate a young user, and search habits may not consistently reflect age.
Lack of Public Data: YouTube claims the system works well in other markets, but no specific accuracy rates (e.g., false positive/negative rates) are provided. Without independent audits, it's hard to verify these claims.
Potential for Bias: AI models can inherit biases from training data. For instance, if the model associates certain genres (e.g., educational content) with younger users, it may misjudge adults with niche interests.

Given these challenges, misclassifications are likely, especially for edge cases. YouTube acknowledges this by offering appeal options, suggesting they expect some errors. The system's reliance on broad signals rather than direct indicators (like verified IDs) makes perfect accuracy improbable, but it may be effective enough for broad categorization in many cases.

Privacy Implications

The AI age verification system raises significant privacy concerns, as highlighted by critics and users:

Data Collection and Analysis: The system continuously analyzes detailed user behavior-watch history, search queries, and potentially comment language-creating a comprehensive profile of user activity. This level of monitoring feels like surveillance to many, especially since it's used to override self-reported data.
Risk of Data Breaches: If users are flagged as minors and must submit government IDs, selfies, or credit card information to appeal, YouTube (and parent company Google) will store sensitive personal data. Large-scale data breaches could expose this information to malicious actors.
Erosion of Anonymity: Requiring IDs or facial scans to access full platform features undermines online anonymity, a cornerstone of internet freedom. Critics, including voices on X and privacy advocates like the Center for Democracy

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.