Verify age without creating an identity-data liability.
Arbiter supports age-gated platforms with privacy-preserving verification, reducing reliance on stored government ID images while preserving compliance evidence.
Compliance review checklist
Risk areas
Age verification is a data governance decision.
Identity data custody
Traditional ID upload flows can create large stores of government identity data, increasing breach exposure and privacy review burden.
User trust
High-friction identity collection can reduce completion rates and draw scrutiny from users who object to permanent identity records.
State variation
Requirements, penalties, enforcement posture, and definitions vary by state. A compliance program needs adaptable controls.
Verification model
A lower-custody path to age assurance.
Verify source credential
A user proves eligibility using a supported identity credential or wallet-based presentation.
Minimize disclosed data
The verification flow confirms an age threshold without disclosing unnecessary identifiers to the relying party.
Return compliance evidence
Your platform receives a concise verification result suitable for access control and audit review.
State landscape
Active age verification laws.
Review current state requirements and enforcement exposure before selecting an implementation model.
| State | Law | Effective Date | Max Penalty | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Louisiana | Act 440 | Jan 2023 | $10,000/violation | Active |
| Texas | HB 18 | Sep 2023 | $10,000/violation | Active |
| Utah | SB 287 | May 2023 | $2,500/violation | Active |
| Arkansas | SB 396 | Sep 2023 | $10,000 repeat | Active |
| California | AB 2273 | Jul 2024 | $7,500/child | Active |
| Ohio | HB 8 | Jan 2024 | Civil penalties | Active |
| Mississippi | HB 1126 | 2024 | $10,000/violation | Active |
| Virginia | HB 1400 | 2024 | $10,000/violation | Active |
| Montana | SB 544 | 2024 | $10,000/violation | Active |
| North Carolina | HB 755 | 2024 | $10,000/violation | Active |
| Florida | HB 3 | 2024 | $10,000/violation | Active |
Louisiana
Texas
Utah
Arkansas
California
Ohio
Mississippi
Virginia
Montana
North Carolina
Florida
Options review
Compare implementation paths.
| Feature | Geo-Blocking(Pornhub) | Traditional ID Upload(Jumio, Yoti) | Zero-Knowledge(Arbiter) |
|---|---|---|---|
| User Data Stored | None | Full PII + ID Photos | Zero PII |
| Data Breach Risk | None | Critical - millions of IDs | None |
| Cost per Verification | $0 | $2-5 | $0.10-0.50 |
| User Privacy | Complete (no access) | Fully compromised | Fully preserved |
| Conversion Impact | 100% loss | -30-50% drop-off | Minimal impact |
| State Compliance | N/A (blocked) | Compliant | Compliant |
| Revenue Impact | Lost entirely | Reduced significantly | Maintained |
| User Trust | Frustrated users | Low - privacy concerns | High - privacy first |
FAQ
Questions for compliance teams.
Is privacy-preserving age verification legally sufficient?
State laws generally focus on reasonable age verification. The legal assessment depends on jurisdiction, implementation details, and risk tolerance, but privacy-preserving approaches can support both verification and data minimization objectives.
How does this differ from ID upload providers?
Traditional providers often rely on document images, selfies, or retained identity records. Arbiter is designed to produce verification outcomes while reducing the amount of personal data exposed to the relying party.
What happens as new state laws pass?
A policy-driven verification layer can adapt thresholds, eligibility rules, and evidence requirements without forcing each product team to rebuild identity flows.