Tim Cook Opposes App Store Age Verification Bill

Personally, I hope it passes and I hope there is something passed nationally. I don't particularly want tech companies archiving my ID forever, but that shouldn't be necessary to implement this kind of thing. There are many many things that you have to show ID for, including purchasing adult "entertainment" in some states, online porn should be treated no differently. Heck, you can't even go see non-child friendly movies without appropriate ID or an adult with you.

Exposure to porn as a child is harmful and the government is actually doing its job when it fights against it.

Do I think any of these laws are going to completely solve the problem? No. But that doesn't mean we just wave our hands in the air and give up either. Perfect being the enemy of good and all that.

How is Apple supposed to verify age? What if a kid gets their own device, gets Apple Gift Cards? Why should that kid be connected to a family that they might be estranged from?

It's a privacy and personal autonomy invasion, which Texas loves.

The issue/threat is probably legal and financial liability. Meta and everyone else wants to make Apple responsible so that they aren't. Externalizing risks, expense, penalties, and especially responsibility is what companies like to do.

Next question, though: What does this enable? Can only buy an app if you're a legal US resident? Can certain classes of apps be blocked due to age, gender, name, affiliation, etc.? Perhaps games can only be played for 1 hr a day on weekdays, 4 hours/day on weekends.

"Externalizing risks, expense, penalties, and especially responsibility is what companies like to do."

That's what Apple is trying to do as well. Device manufacturers and web site operators are both pointing the finger at each other because they all want this to be someone else's problem.

I mean, not yours specifically......

To be clear, I don’t think this should exclusively be on device makers, every website owner should be held criminally liable if they allow minors to view porn. Huge swaths of music, YouTube videos, music videos, clothing stores, etc should be blocked for children as well for soft core porn and other age inappropriate topics.

@Someone else Isn’t Apple already purporting to verify age by offering the API?

@Michael, can you name this API that already has been added? Details matter: https://pxlnv.com/linklog/ios-age-range-api/ This post say "later this year". You know just like various things promised at WWDC '24 that didn't make the cut. I know, it's your blog (and opinion) that these APIs are already out - but without details it's hard to say you aren't contributing to false facts. If it matters, I actually think - other than that flat out statement - I agree with your thoughts on this.

Let's go in the way back machine to, say, the 1970s I was a teenager then and the World Wide Web, if it existed was called ARPAnet or something like that. Broadband? High speed WiFi? Nope. Email? WTF is that? And iPhones (hardware) or apps (software) are about 40-50 years in the future. But porn....

Available in many drug stores, maybe behind a counter or better yet just covered, for purchase as hard copies. Just like beer. All you needed was proof of age, or a forgiving cashier (that was rare) who didn't ask for it. OR... simply have your older of age friend purchase it.

You really cannot stop EVERY SINGLE underage person from getting something that they are too young for. Maybe you can parentally monitor them.... but back in the 70s you - as a parent - still have to have a life where you cannot raise them 24/7 in this regard. Laws be damned! (Oops, there's a 4 letter word. Sarcasm intended.)

Continuing with the sarcasm, our current president is now speaking about a 25% tariff on iPhones not built/sold in the US (which includes Texas). While I'm certainly NOT for it, if it means a $3000 iPhone (some think it will) maybe that's a better way to dictate if the user is underage. Hey, at least many responsible parents won't pay for that new iPhone.... and if this underage one does, more power to them as they probably have to work for it!

Follow up on my claim about APIs and later this year:

https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/27/apple-introduces-new-child-safety-initiatives-including-an-age-checking-system-for-apps/

Money quote:

Several of the changes for child accounts are available in the public beta of iOS 18.4, out now. The ability to make updates to the age of a child account after it’s already created, as well as the Declared Age Range API, Age Ratings and App Store updates will be available later this year, Apple says.

@Dave Yes, you’re right that so far the API is announced but not shipping. My point is just that it seems to not have factored into this lobbying and I’m wondering why. Like, is Cook’s goal that they get rid of the regulation and don’t ship the API at all? Or that the regulation fit better with the API? Or the API is an additional layer on top of what happens at the time of purchase and they’re going to do it either way?

Does the API exist but just isn’t in a beta yet? Or is it vaporware for PR purposes?

> You really cannot stop EVERY SINGLE underage person from getting something that they are too young for.

@Dave: very true. I’m not saying it can be made impossible, but I am saying that it should be drastically harder than it is now and that companies not taking reasonable precautions should be held liable. Check boxes saying “yes I’m 18” don’t count.

@Michael Tsai,

I’m not Tim Cook but if I were, I’d argue for giving industry the chance to regulate itself first.

So, veto now and if need be, pass a law later. Republicans used to love that, but I think Christians have regulatory-captured Texas, so that may not work. .

I also haven’t read the law — would love to see a summary — so wondering what the enforcement mechanism is and penalties.

The answer to why Tim Cook personally opposes this is simple: it’s because he is a gay man and considers trans people to be part of the LGBTQ+ community.

These age verification laws around “obscene material” are thinly veiled attempts to ban children from accessing information about transitioning (and about sexuality and queerness in general).

Once you understand the political purpose behind the law, the question of APIs and Apple’s desire to control its platform becomes moot. There are some lines Tim Cook believes Apple should not cross in search of profit. Harming trans youth is one of them.

In the current political environment that puts him on the courageous end of big tech CEOs.

Isn’t the real issue for greedy Apple that this would add friction to the purchase flow on the App Store and so reduce the easy money they make?

It's pretty funny to me that this seems to be mostly about porn. I was a child in the 80s, and we had access to hardcore porn before we turned 10 or even knew what the Internet was. We didn't have access to online casinos mimicking child-friendly videogames, or social networks full of disinformation and predators, though.

"I’d argue for giving industry the chance to regulate itself first."

They've had their chance, and they've done less than nothing.

@someone Supposedly Apple thinks the friction should be at the app level, not at the App Store level, but given that they make most of their money via IAP, and that presumably you’d need to age-verify before purchasing the IAP, it seems like doing this at the app level would reduces sales even more.

There is big difference between companies like Apple, Google and other big players deciding among them who does it, how and why, and actually provincial governments all over the world dictating them how to do that.

Political issues aside, it seems there already exists a technical solution. Does Texas support state IDs in the Wallet app? The Wallet app could provide a simple yes/no answer as to whether the user is over a certain age. As long as Texas believes the system works, that seems like an already existing way that's verified as well as possible, and also covers the privacy angle.

The much bigger issue is the political implications and the intended/unintended consequences.

Not so sure I do want to see all the governments fully support the digital ID, because then it will be used for leverage in other ways. Everyone here seems to believe it will affect them, whichever side of the issue they are on.

Does the question of personal/parental responsibility even enter into it? It seems it's really just another battle for control.

@Bart, no!

There are several layers to this. Legal, political, technical, familiar. Yet at its root *is* that last one. Can a school child own a gun? Use one? Even for hunting "fair game"? My guess is legally, it depends on what state (or country) this child is in. Can this "child" get access to a gun - illegally - and kill one or more, be it a school schooting or just one-on-one? That is more a matter of what you call "personal/parental" control.

The genie is out of the bottle for these... guns, internet, even a simply age verification. While I wish to respectfully disagree, your last sentence doesn't help me understand what I disagree about. OF COURSE, a gun doesn't belong in the hands of an a 4 year old. Even a 10 year old who isn't under supervision. Period. (Please, tell me you don't agree on this.) And OF COURSE, internet supervision, be it is a matter of, well, parental control for this same child. But at least SOME blockades help because said parent cannot provide it 24/7. How do you feel? From the sounds of it the blockades are currently enough?

Again, I respectfully disagree. Or at least I think I do. A wallet app with state ID is your technical solution? I learned in the 1960s where my parents hid their cash. That never stopped me. And yes, times change, and soon pennies will no longer be minted. But how does a device - easily used by another person, maybe not your's as I see how you never left home without it - make a difference.

Honestly, a technical solution DOES NOT exist. Nor a legal one.

A technical solution does exist — insofar as legal liability. Check for ID of some sort, and block anyone who can’t provide it, with criminal penalties. The company would need to have some procedure that has reasonable verifiability.

That’s happening/will happen with RealID and airplane travel.

Not great for businesses (or those selling guns to 10-year-olds) but a solution does exist if there’s the will to make it happen (just like we could have similar rules and deeper checks for gun sales)

Do we want government regulation of the internet? No? Yes? Maybe? I might feel differently if this law was coming from California and not Texas.

In any case, seems like Meta knows which way the wind is blowing and wants the tornado to hit Apple’s barn and not theirs, because even an unconstitutional law can take several years to unwind.

My kids have Apple accounts but any App Store purchases have to be approved by me to go through.

There is no porn in the App Store so idk .

A 12 year old shouldn’t be able to rack up thousands of dollars in in app purchases though …so hopefully parents set up family accounts properly.

I don’t really get why this has to be a law

>Do we want government regulation of the internet? No? Yes? Maybe? I might feel differently if this law was coming from California and not Texas.

Why would you feel differently? Genuinely curious. California state govt is one of the worst in the entire country

I thick it's good that Apple and Google provide family accounts to minimize the risk of children spending thousands of dollars.

But it clearly isn't enough, and I think a law, or app store policy against this predatory monetization scheme would be great.

I really don't think people can be expected to know that a free children's game can result in hundreds or thousands of dollars in expenses.

Regulate that shit.

In app purchases can't exceed four times the cost of your app, or 10$ a month.

I can't help but weigh in here now with a hearty ranty essay.

I'm instantly skeptical of any attempt by a government to expand requirements for IDs, especially into online spaces. This isn't to say I think children should have free access to all sorts of harmful content. I just don't trust any government or corporation is going to restrict these mechanisms to just being for the purpose they ostensibly say it is. That goes doubly when the stated purpose is protecting children, since that's an issue where it's so easy to manipulate people. (Of course we want to protect children!) We've seen too many instances, especially since the introduction of the Patriot act, where these measures were gradually expanded far beyond what they were originally intended for.

Admittedly I'm cynical, but I see this being expanded to put an ID wall behind any number of different kinds of online services, with the ability to revoke someone's access from afar. No ID, or the wrong kind of ID, or various marks against your ID? You get cut off. Western governments and major corporations have already demonstrated that they're willing to punitively take away people's ability to engage in various facets of society for any number of reasons, including political, bureaucratic, or just plain imbecilic. It won't be long until such a thing affects someone in a similar manner as Mr. Buttle at the start of the film Brazil. And it's foolish to agree with it because the politics of the people implementing it align with your own in this moment. Just wait five, ten or twenty years for the pendulum to swing the other way and then see if it's being harmfully applied to the wrong people or for the wrong reasons.

There's also the obvious privacy implications. Do I need to make a case that one wouldn't their full ID, with their full name and address, being required to access http://www.cucked-and-pegged-with-a-two-foot-dildo.com? ;-) Or a website, porn or otherwise, that knows your entire naughty search history? Imagine what would happen when there's an inevitable dataleak at one of these closed, opaque systems, and we learn that at no point was it adequately protecting anyone's privacy?

Granted, there are technical ways of implementing such a system so that a) access to the resources can't just be taken away, and b) no one actually knows your identity when you access them, they just know you pass whatever qualifications you need, such as being an adult. I might begrudgingly agree with certain restrictions, if they were implemented that way. But I'm near certain that they will not be, and instead will be implemented so that all of the above consequences I've outlined will be possible, and I'm willing to bet that it's because *those* are the point of the system: it's to empower and protect the elite power structures of our society, and disempower the people, and not the other way around. Attribute it to either malice or incompetence as you like, because there will probably be healthy helpings of both involved.

@gildarts Age verification laws are being pressed as a "think of the children" thing when the goal is to make it harder to remain anonymous on the internet if you do things that our conservative government doesn't like, such as watch porn

Eventually, the goal is to expand it to other things too. The end goal is removing anonymity on the internet which could easily be abused by an authoritarian government

This is why I oppose these laws and I think most people do as well

"Admittedly I'm cynical"

That take would have been cynical a decade ago, but now it's just a fact. The current American government will use anything and everything it can to hurt any marginalized group it can.

@ Objc4Life

>> Do we want government regulation of the internet? No? Yes? Maybe? I might feel differently if this law was coming from California and not Texas.
>
> Why would you feel differently? Genuinely curious. California state govt is one of the worst in the entire country

Because of CA’s track record.

While no one is perfect, CA is much more pro-consumer, pro-personal freedom (liberal as in freedom). 4th biggest economy in the world, too. Not doing that bad.

CA lead the pack for lots of things — environmental protection, ‘one-click-to-cancel’ for subscriptions, making companies keep store credits without monthly fees that drain them… lots of things that are good for the individual, less good for business. Things that were happening at the federal level but we’ll see where that goes for the next 3.5 years, but not looking good.

So if I saw this type of legislation coming from CA (and it’s very possible it would never), I’d think of that legislative history and throughline… in contrast to Texas which has a very different legislative history (the reason why Musk moved his companies there — less consumer/stockholder-protecting regulation) and voter-power-base (social conservatives, in this case)

Pro consumer if you count shoplifters as consumers who can steal up to a grand of stuff and only get a slap on the wrist

I mean “environmental protection” at what cost though, not doing controlled burns and not filling hydrants with water so your house can burn down?

In any case i don’t want to take the replies too off topic

—

It is increasingly hard to be anonymous on the internet. Remember back when we were kids we all had AOL screennames and we bullshitted in chatrooms carefree. Didnt use our real names, didn’t post pictures of your plate at a restaurant. Didn’t try to be an “influencer” posting dumb shit online at 12 that you’re going to regret when you’re 22. Since the Facebooking of the internet they’re archiving everything these kids do and say and want to hold it over them forever.

People who want to watch porn are going to have to go back to buying magazines and dvds if they want to remain anonymous, or use a vpn but then the vpn provider knows the porn you’re watching instead of your ISP.

"Pro consumer if you count shoplifters as consumers who can steal up to a grand of stuff and only get a slap on the wrist"

Below $950 (which is what you're probably referring to), shoplifting is a misdemeanor and can result in up to six months in jail; laws have been further strengthened this year. For reference, in Texas, the threshold for shoplifting misdemeanors is $2,500.

"not doing controlled burns"

California is doing prescribed burning.

"not filling hydrants with water"

California has faced severe droughts in recent years, but systematically and intentionally not supplying hydrants with water has never been part of any water conservation measures.

"In any case i don’t want to take the replies too off topic"

Then why did you?

@Manx: I'm aware of the potential trade offs and at least some of the ways that it can be abused, but I also believe that the current state of the internet and how children can interact with it is completely unsustainable/intolerable. As a parent I've put in a lot of work to make my children's devices as safe as I know how, but there is a constant fear that the setting will randomly change (I've seen it happen while the device has been exclusively in my possession) or that I missed something, etc.

I don't particularly want government censorship of the internet or government forced logging of all adult access, etc, but if private industry can't or won't drastically improve the situation (and they haven't in the time that I've been alive), I do believe that governments have to do something. People refer to the "Think of the children" argument/appeal as a logical fallacy, and there are certainly ways it is used that are, but that doesn't invalidate every concern that people have that involves children.

Apparently the only governments willing to do something about it are ones you dislike, I don't particularly care who is working on the problem. Maybe the people you like better should be asking themselves why they have been unwilling to do anything about some of the obvious problems.

@plume I'm aware California made some changes recently because well, things were pretty bad. Also George Gascón recently lost re-election.

> California has faced severe droughts in recent years, but systematically and intentionally not supplying hydrants with water has never been part of any water conservation measures.

So you have to systematically and intentionally do something bad in order to be criticized? What about incompetence? Something tells me you wouldn't be so forgiving if a red state gov't handled a natural disaster so poorly.

ANYWAY my point still stands. I wouldn't feel comfortable if California state gov't was doing this either. I'm not comfortable with Texas doing it FWIW. I'm not being partisan on this. IMO just don't give your kids unlimited access to your credit cards and set parental controls on their devices.

"I'm aware California made some changes recently because well, things were pretty bad"

Then what is your complaint? They identified a problem and fixed it. Isn't that what governments are supposed to do?

You made two particular claims in this sentence:

"I mean “environmental protection” at what cost though, not doing controlled burns and not filling hydrants with water so your house can burn down?"

Both of the claims you made here (they're not doing controlled burns for the reason of environmental protection, they're not filling hydrants with water for the reason of environmental protection) are false.

They're not only false, they're also incredibly implausible. They're the kind of false statement that immediately should ring all of the alarm bells if you hear somebody make them. I have no idea what California is doing, but when I read these claims, I immediately knew they were almost certainly false, and it took me just two minutes of googling to find sources that disproved your claims.

You should stop arguing with me and start wondering why you believed these very obviously false things and repeated them here.

"Something tells me you wouldn't be so forgiving if a red state gov't handled a natural disaster so poorly."

You made specific claims. I pointed out that your claims are wrong. I said absolutely nothing about California other than pointing out that your claims are false.

@Plume I think you're getting a little too wound up about this TBH.

> "I mean “environmental protection” at what cost though, not doing controlled burns and not filling hydrants with water so your house can burn down?"
?Both of the claims you made here (they're not doing controlled burns for the reason of environmental protection, they're not filling hydrants with water for the reason of environmental protection) are false.

California's problems as it relates to wildfires goes back many years (quote from a 2020 article below):

"It’s also true that burns supported by state or federal grants have to undergo additional environmental reviews, which can sometimes hold up projects past windows of opportunity. The researchers say that the experts they talked to felt these reviews are designed for larger projects and don’t work well with prescribed burns. They were also leery of weakening environmental protections, though, so there was no clear recommendation." - https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/why-isnt-california-using-more-prescribed-burns-to-reduce-fire-risk/

Sure it is more complicated than "they don't do it because of environmental protection." Okay? I concede that they are a lousy government not solely because they are overly concerned about the environment. There are many reasons why they are a lousy state government. Overregulation, incompetence, misplaced priorities, low risk tolerance (as it relates to the burns) etc.

"I think you're getting a little too wound up about this TBH."

That's pretty funny.

"I concede that they are a lousy government not solely because they are overly concerned about the environment."

This is just dumb. Stop viewing politics as a game. This kind of bullshit is the reason the US is fucked.

@ ObjC4Life

California is objectively (see what I did there) better than Texas unless you’re a business. Bigger, too, where it counts: in size of heart, liberty, and economy. :)

And like I said earlier, California would probably not even attempt to pass a law like this Texas one.

Back to the topic:

If we’re going to do age verification, something like what the EU does would be better for privacy — anonymous verification from the government.

A true or false bit for age verification is what I imagine, and that’s what Apple would prefer based on their previous privacy record. The requester of this bit is likely also be anonymous. GDPR is a huge deal. (California is way behind GDPR, but ahead of most of the rest of the country.)

They don’t need or want to know your actual age, and even for iPhone’s IDs in digital wallet, they’d send only what you allow them to, including a YES/NO for >= ‘some age number’.

The minimum amount of verification necessary, basically. But EU can do it because they have standardized government-issued IDs. I really wonder how Texas expects this to work. Maybe they track your license plate.

On the bright side, by putting verification into Apple’s hands, this will be likely more secure and private than putting it if Texas did it.

Financial Times: https://archive.ph/Htwxm

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-age-verification

> California is objectively (see what I did there) better than Texas unless you’re a business.

Haha. Cali is a place where the wealthy can shelter themselves from the state’s major problems and simultaneously feel good about themselves for their naive ideals because they are “progressive.”

For example Cali is one of the most over regulated over taxed states in the country. Apple operates out of California. Apple will hide their money in offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes. So long as other people gotta deal with the consequences the state is perfect

> A true or false bit for age verification is what I imagine, and that’s what Apple would prefer based on their previous privacy record

@Someone else i’d prefer something like this as well. Again with App Store already not permitting porn i’m not sure how much benefit will come. Use parental controls available now for your kids’ devices and you should mostly be good. Far as the web goes, there are sites that will comply with state laws and sites operating overseas that will just give a state govt the middle finger so ..not sure how much benefit this would bring overall

"Cali is one of the most over regulated over taxed states in the country"

For low- and middle-income families, California's tax burden is similar to States like Texas. It's higher for high earners, who pay some of the highest taxes in the US.

However, a much bigger issue here is that taxes in the US are overall too low, particularly for high earners and corporations, leading to an increasing national debt. The US consistently uses debt to pay for tax breaks, which is an insane policy.

"For example Cali is one of the most over regulated (...). Apple will hide their money in offshore accounts"

So you're saying it's both overregulated and underregulated.

I’m saying it’s over regulated but there are loopholes typically only the super rich can take advantage of because they have teams of professional accountants and lawyers

It seems that i do agree with Tim Cook on this one however. I don’t want to end up in a place where I need to enter my driver’s license to prove my age to watch a video on YouTube with curse words. Could be a slippery slope

Your arguments are vague enough to be meaningless, and any time you make a specific point, it turns out to be completely false and easily disproven.

(Which, oddly, doesn't make you reconsider your position, but only makes you double down on it—aren't humans strange?)

Let me ask you this: if I came up to you and whined about how Texas was "underregulated," on a scale of 1 to 10, how seriously would you take me? I hope the answer is 0, because it's such a generic thing to say that it doesn't hold any meaning.

At any rate, you never found a counter to what Someone else has said, which is that California's government generally seems to be motivated by making things better for regular people, as opposed to the governments of many other States, which seem to be more captured by corporate interests. If anything, the comments you've made seem to support that position.