Bills, Bills, Bills
In the last year, Linux gaming has exploded with the advent of the Proton compatibility layer and Windows ending service of the beloved Windows 10 OS in favor of their ugly step-sister OS Windows 11. Windows 11 has become a bedrock for bloat, AI tools no one asked for, and security surveillance that feels like 1984. For many gamers, the migration to Linux represented more than just technical preference—it was an escape from corporate overreach into personal computing. But that escape route is now under legislative threat.
Valve also stands as a major player in this space as the provider of SteamOS, and these laws could represent another roadblock in the path for the release of the much-anticipated Steam Machine (a living room console), the Steam Frame (VR glases with integrated SteamOS), and the inevitable Steam Deck successor—all officially announced by Valve in recent trailers. One of the best parts of Linux or FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) is the freedom of choice and having a system not bogged down by a corporate overlord potentially spying and selling my data to some random corporation to sell me shit I don’t need.
Two bills, nearly identical in structure and intent, have emerged from state legislatures to fundamentally alter how operating systems handle user identity. California’s AB 1043 (introduced by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, and signed into law) and Colorado’s SB 26-051 (introduced by Senator Chris Hansen, D-Denver, and currently advancing through committee) represent the first major attempt to mandate age verification at the operating system level in the United States.
Both bills require “operating system providers” to collect birth date information during device setup, categorize users into four age brackets (under 13, 13-17, 18-24, and 25+), and expose this data to applications through a standardized API. The stated goal is protecting children from harmful online content by creating a centralized age signal that apps can query rather than implementing their own verification systems.
The mechanics are straightforward but far-reaching: when a user sets up a new device or creates a new account, the operating system must prompt for birth date information. This data is then converted into an age bracket signal that applications can request when downloaded or launched. Developers who receive this signal are legally bound to treat it as accurate unless they possess “clear and convincing evidence” otherwise. Non-compliance carries severe penalties—up to $2,500 per minor for negligent violations and $7,500 per minor for intentional non-compliance.
California’s law applies to any “business that provides an online service, product, or feature likely to be accessed by children,” while Colorado’s version specifically targets operating system providers and software application developers. Both define “operating system provider” broadly enough to encompass not just Apple, Google, and Microsoft, but potentially any entity that “develops, licenses, or controls” operating system software—including Linux distributions and boutique PC manufacturers.
Potential impact and implications
The immediate friction is obvious: every device setup becomes an interrogation. Birth date, age bracket, persistent signal — the OS now knows who you are demographically and broadcasts it to any app that asks. For users who migrated to Linux precisely to escape this kind of corporate data harvesting, the irony is bitter. The state is mandating what Microsoft and Google always wanted: normalized, centralized identity verification baked into the operating system itself.
But the deeper threat is infrastructure. Today it’s four age brackets. Tomorrow it’s verified identity tied to government ID. Next year it’s real-name requirements for online access. The system being built under “protecting children” is clearly designed for expansion. Once the API exists, once the data flows, the brackets can be refined, the verification strengthened, the scope widened. This is how surveillance states are built — not overnight, but through incremental “reasonable” steps that nobody can oppose without looking like they hate children.
The “theater” aspect makes it worse. Users can lie about their age. The OS isn’t liable if they do. So the actual protection is minimal — kids will bypass it, parents who care already have tools, and the only guaranteed outcome is data collection. The state gets surveillance infrastructure, corporations get standardized user profiling, and actual children get nothing. It’s a perfect example of what privacy advocates call “security theater” — elaborate measures that look protective but accomplish nothing except normalizing intrusion.
For developers, the burden is substantial. Small indie studios now face liability for how they handle age signals. FOSS projects — often volunteer-run, barely funded — must implement compliance or risk fines that would bankrupt them. Smaller devs don’t have the financial backing or resources to navigate these laws in a way that will allow them to fight back. The same with boutique manufacturers like Framework and System76. Them like many others are likely to comply just so they can keep their business afloat. Tech YouTuber Louis Rossmann outlined why companies would comply with this — he is a business owner himself. California is a huge state and a lot of potential business could be lost by not complying. The math is brutal: lose 39 million potential customers, or implement an age gate. For a small company, there’s no real choice. If you’re not a Valve, you don’t have the means to take that hit to your revenue. Lenovo can just not sell or do business in California and be fine.
The law claims to target big tech but lands hardest on those least equipped to fight back. And the “clear and convincing evidence” standard for doubting the age signal creates legal ambiguity that only lawyers can navigate, further consolidating power in established players who can afford compliance departments.
The platform lock-in effects are equally concerning. Once age verification is centralized in the OS, switching platforms becomes harder. Your age signal doesn’t transfer — it’s tied to your Apple ID, your Google account, your Microsoft profile. The ecosystem stickiness that tech giants crave becomes legally mandated. And for FOSS systems that don’t have centralized accounts? They either build surveillance infrastructure or face exclusion from major markets.
Age of Verification
The scope of these laws is deliberately broad, capturing far more than the Apple-Google duopoly that legislators likely had in mind. The definition of “operating system provider” extends to any entity that “develops, licenses, or controls” OS software — language that sweeps in Linux distributions, custom firmware projects, and boutique hardware makers alongside the tech giants.
Big Tech: Apple and Google are the primary targets, with Microsoft close behind. These companies already collect extensive user data, so adding age verification is technically trivial. For them, compliance is a minor engineering task that further entrenches their market position. They can absorb the fines if they slip up, and they benefit from the compliance burden falling on smaller competitors.
Gaming: Valve stands at a unique intersection. SteamOS powers the Steam Deck and will soon run the Steam Machine and Steam Frame. Unlike Apple or Google, Valve has cultivated a reputation for user freedom and privacy. These laws force them into a difficult position: implement surveillance infrastructure or abandon major markets. Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have their own platforms to worry about, but Valve’s Linux-based approach makes them particularly vulnerable to the FOSS liability questions these laws raise.
PC OEMs: Lenovo (Chinese-owned), ASUS (Taiwanese), Acer (Taiwanese), and Dell (American) ship millions of Windows devices. They’ll follow Microsoft’s lead — if Windows implements age verification, they comply by default. But their own Linux experiments become complicated. Do they disable those offerings in California and Colorado? Do they pressure their Linux partners to comply? The irony is stark: American legislation forcing American companies to surveil users, while Asian-owned multinationals navigate compliance through their US subsidiaries.
To put it more into perspective, your Lenovo Legion Go, ASUS ROG Ally X, or OneXPlayer APEX could be faced with this kind of surveillance implementation — especially if you’re using Windows, with Linux not far behind. Big projects like Bazzite, CachyOS, and Garuda, like many others, will indeed have to navigate this new storm of bureaucratic bullshit. The gaming handheld revolution that promised freedom from console walled gardens is now staring down the barrel of state-mandated identity verification.
US boutique makers: System76 and Framework are the canaries in this coal mine. Both ship hardware with Linux pre-installed, both have US-based operations subject to state jurisdiction, and both have publicly expressed concern. System76’s jackpot51 was explicit: “I personally hate this bill.” Yet they’re implementing compliance because the alternative is business death. Framework likely faces the same calculus. These companies represent the “escape to Linux” dream — small, principled, user-focused — and they’re being forced to build the very surveillance infrastructure their customers fled.
FOSS distros: Here’s where it gets messy. Ubuntu (Canonical), Fedora (Red Hat), SUSE, elementary OS — these have corporate backing and can theoretically comply. But what about Arch? Gentoo? The thousands of small distros maintained by volunteers? The law doesn’t distinguish between Microsoft and a solo developer in Nebraska shipping a custom Debian spin. If that developer accepts donations, sells merch, or even has a Patreon, does that create a “business relationship” triggering liability? jackpot51’s warning is stark: “Community developed operating systems offered for free may even be required to comply or face fines.”
Foreign handheld makers: This is where my personal collection runs into legal ambiguity — and where geopolitics enters the equation. AYANEO (China), GPD (China), and One-Netbook (China, makers of the ONEXPLAYER) — none are US companies. But if they sell to California or Colorado residents, if they offer support forums, if they have Amazon storefronts or US distributors, the “business relationship” test may apply. Can California’s Attorney General actually enforce against a Shenzhen-based company with no US legal presence? Unclear. But payment processors (PayPal, Stripe), shipping partners, and US retailers could become pressure points.
The timing is toxic. These laws arrive amid escalating US-China tensions over semiconductor dominance, tariffs, and technology transfer. California and Colorado are effectively demanding that Chinese handheld manufacturers implement American surveillance infrastructure or face market exclusion. This worsens an already strained relationship — Beijing sees American tech policy as increasingly hostile to Chinese companies, while American legislators seem indifferent to the compliance burden placed on foreign firms. The silicon war is being fought on multiple fronts, and age verification laws have become another friction point in a deteriorating trade relationship.
Users: Finally, the people actually using these devices. Parents who want tools to manage their kids’ access — they already have them. Privacy-conscious adults who chose Linux to escape corporate surveillance — they’re losing that refuge. Kids who will bypass age verification in approximately 30 seconds — unaffected. The only guaranteed outcome is more friction, more data collection, and less control over our own computing.
Comply or Die
The silence from major players is deafening. Apple and Google have said nothing publicly, presumably building compliance into their next OS releases. Microsoft has issued no statements on how Windows will implement age verification, though their enterprise and government relationships suggest they’ll follow regulatory guidance without resistance. These companies are too large and too integrated with state power to fight — compliance is simply the cost of doing business.
But here’s what gnaws at me: if Microsoft and Apple didn’t like this legislation, they have the power, resources, muscle, and money to make this go away. They lobby Congress regularly, they fund think tanks, they shape policy. Yet they’re silent. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks Microsoft may have had a hand in this law or is acting in a way that will help push this further. Can’t prove it, but I feel like there’s something there potentially. These two are in bed with government more than anyone else — Azure contracts, Pentagon deals, Apple being the “secure” choice for federal agencies. This law consolidates their power while crushing smaller competitors who can’t afford compliance. Convenient.
Valve remains entirely silent. No statements on SteamOS, no guidance for developers, no indication of how the Steam Deck, Steam Machine, or Steam Frame will handle age verification in California or Colorado. This is typical Valve — opaque, slow to communicate, potentially working on technical solutions in private. But the clock is ticking. AB 1043 is already law; SB 26-051 is advancing. At some point, silence becomes a decision.
System76 broke that silence with unusual candor. Jeremy Soller (jackpot51), Principal Engineer, posted a statement on Reddit that pulled no punches: “I personally hate this bill, and the idiot lawmakers who have pushed it.” He clarified that System76 is discussing compliance internally, warned that FOSS projects are not exempt, and noted the “ludicrous amount of legal liability” these laws introduce. Most strikingly, he outlined a potential “minimum implementation” — the OS could simply refuse to run if a user claims to be under 18 in California. No data collection, no surveillance, just a hard stop. Brutal, but compliant.
Framework has said nothing publicly, but their position is nearly identical to System76’s. US-based, Linux-focused, hardware-integrated, too small to fight, too principled to embrace surveillance willingly. If they’re not already discussing compliance internally, they will be soon.
The FOSS community at large remains largely unaware or in denial. jackpot51’s comment about “naive commentators who believe open source is somehow off the hook” rings true — there’s a persistent belief that “we’re not a business” or “we don’t sell anything” provides legal immunity. It doesn’t. The law cares about “business relationships,” not corporate structure. A Patreon, a donation link, a merch store, a paid support contract — any of these could trigger liability.
The Greys Anatomy of Liability
The legislation leaves critical questions unanswered, creating legal minefields for anyone trying to comply in good faith.
FOSS liability scope: What exactly constitutes a “business relationship”? A GitHub Sponsor button? A Patreon? A Discord server with Nitro boosts? A conference talk with a paid honorarium? The law doesn’t define the threshold, leaving individual developers guessing whether their project qualifies. A solo maintainer in Ohio who accepts $50/month in donations may suddenly be liable for $7,500 per California child using their distro. The chilling effect is intentional — uncertainty drives over-compliance.
International enforcement: Can California’s Attorney General actually fine a Chinese company with no US legal presence? Probably not directly. But payment processors (PayPal, Stripe), shipping partners (FedEx, UPS), US-based retailers (Amazon, Newegg), and even banking relationships become pressure points. The extraterritorial reach is murky but real — foreign manufacturers may find themselves locked out of US markets not by direct enforcement, but by intermediaries refusing to work with “non-compliant” entities.
Location verification: How does an OS know if a user is “in California”? IP geolocation is trivial to bypass with VPNs. GPS can be spoofed. Self-reported location is meaningless. The law provides no technical standard for verification, yet OS providers are liable if children access their systems. This creates an impossible standard — perfect location verification is impossible, but imperfect verification creates liability.
Used and resale markets: If I buy a used Steam Deck on eBay, does it inherit the previous owner’s age attestation? Can I reset it? If I sell my ASUS Xbox ROG Ally running Bazzite, am I responsible for ensuring the buyer complies? The law is silent on secondary markets, potentially creating liability for private sellers or used hardware platforms.
The Microsoft-ASUS partnership: The Xbox ROG Ally creates a unique compliance chain. Microsoft provides the Xbox branding, software integration, and Game Pass ecosystem. ASUS provides the hardware, distribution, and support. So who is the “operating system provider”? Microsoft, for the Xbox software layer? ASUS, for the firmware and Windows installation? Both? If Bazzite or another Linux distro replaces the stock OS, does liability shift? Partnerships like this were likely not considered when the law was drafted, yet they represent an increasing share of the gaming hardware market.
Forks and derivatives: Who is responsible for a Ubuntu fork? If I build a custom Arch-based distro for my friends, am I an “operating system provider”? If Bazzite complies but I fork Bazzite and remove the age verification, who’s liable? The law’s chain of responsibility is undefined, potentially extending liability downstream to anyone who “controls” software.
The lying loophole: Users can lie about their age. The OS isn’t liable if they do. So what’s the actual point? If this is easily bypassed and hard to enforce, what is truly the endgame? For those in the tech space, this is death by a thousand cuts — the first cuts start here, then over time we get more aggressive, egregious, and overstepping. Our digital freedoms will be snuffed out by way of this new age of digital policing and constant surveillance.
The long-term consequences for Linux are dire. If this balloons too much, fewer and fewer Linux devs will emerge because the red tape to develop will be too much without having seed money to get started. Microsoft will be the only OS option outside of the corporate-backed Linux distros. Indie distros and OSes will lessen more and more until nothing but corpo distros exist. A very dystopian future isn’t as far-fetched as we might think — unless those who have the power to fight back actually fight this.
Total Global Saturation
California and Colorado are not anomalies. They are templates.
The United Kingdom’s Age Appropriate Design Code (the “Children’s Code”) already mandates privacy-by-default for services likely to be accessed by children. The European Union’s Digital Services Act includes provisions for age verification and parental controls. Australia’s Online Safety Act empowers regulators to demand age assurance systems. The infrastructure is being built globally, piece by piece, each jurisdiction citing the same justification: protecting children.
What makes the California and Colorado approach particularly dangerous is its targeting of the operating system layer. The UK’s code focuses on online services. The EU’s DSA targets platforms. But AB 1043 and SB 26-051 reach deeper — into the foundation of computing itself. If this model spreads, age verification becomes as ubiquitous as Wi-Fi setup, as normalized as accepting terms of service, as invisible as background telemetry.
The fragmentation risk: If every jurisdiction implements slightly different standards — different age brackets, different verification methods, different liability thresholds — compliance becomes impossible for global projects. A FOSS distro that complies with California’s four brackets may fail the UK’s stricter requirements, or Australia’s mandatory ID verification proposals. The result is balkanization: region-locked operating systems, geofenced software, and the end of truly global open source.
The corporate consolidation effect: Small players cannot navigate this complexity. Only Microsoft, Apple, and Google have the legal teams to manage fifty different state-level compliance regimes, each with slightly different rules. The laws that claim to rein in Big Tech actually cement their dominance by crushing alternatives.
Choice is important. It’s the very fabric of the American way. Potentially snuffing out choice empowers the tech giants to do whatever they want. We have a right to privacy and we also have a right to not have the government using children as a Trojan horse to implement ill-intentioned legislation to further push their agenda.
And what’s not lost on me is that “progressive” government officials are the ones pushing these bills. This is no different than what happened with TikTok and ByteDance. TikTok now being 80% owned by Oracle and Silver Lake was a watershed moment in tech. It wasn’t just another app being bought out — it was a signal that you can strong-arm corporations into submission with the right amount of force and threats. Progressives were also in favor of that deal with the ludicrous pretense of “data security integrity” when our data is bought and sold by the US government already. The boogeyman of the Chinese spying on us fed into a lifelong propaganda that situated China as this villain against freedom, the US as the bastion of freedom for everyone.
The result? TikTok’s algorithm was severely harmed and censored since the sale. The “For You” page that made the platform vibrant and discoverable is now broken, content moderation has tightened to absurd degrees, and the user experience has degraded significantly. The “security” threat was never addressed because it was never the point — the point was control. Just as the “child safety” threat here will never be addressed because age verification is theater. Both laws use foreign boogeymen and vulnerable populations to normalize surveillance infrastructure that serves state and corporate power, while actually damaging the products they claim to protect. It’s the same playbook, different act.
It’s laughable that California and Colorado Democrats are pushing this bullshit in this current political climate. It’s irresponsible and idiotic. It further illustrates that our government officials are indeed tech illiterate. These people are writing laws for everyone else without having the knowledge or expertise to understand how this will be enforced.
If I am to believe this was developed in good faith, then these public officials are incredibly ignorant and uneducated. If I am to lean more on the malice behind this, then this is just the beginning.
I really hope Valve rallies the Linux community against this. They have the power, influence, and goodwill amongst the gaming community to really create a movement against this stupid ass legislation. If you live in Colorado or California, remember this when election time comes up. Use your voice and cast your vote for those who do not hide behind the safety of kids to springboard bullshit laws, or are just too uneducated to understand why this is stupid.
About Author
