Real Safety AI Foundation / Research

Children, Schools, and Youth Policy

The Distributor's Burden: Platform Verification Duties, Privacy-Preserving Age Assurance, and the Constitutional Ceiling on Online Child-Safety Design

Publisher: Real Safety AI Foundation

Working draft. Not peer reviewed.

Written
July 2026
Version
v2
Pages
17
Download PDFPlain language slides (PDF)Export BibTeXExport RIS

Abstract

The public argument over children and online platforms is being fought on the wrong axis. When a platform frames a proposed media-prominence rule as a threat to open recommendation, or a legislature answers a stream of harmful content by demanding that every user prove an age, both moves aim the burden of child protection at the wrong party. The classification that actually decides whether a video reaches a child runs, on the largest platforms, on creator self-report, and self-report is a sieve. A May 2026 field study found that roughly a third of surveyed children had already bypassed age checks, some by drawing a moustache with a makeup pencil and some by pointing a camera at an animated video-game character. This paper argues that the burden belongs to the distributor. It first clears two wrong answers. User-side mass age verification collides with a constitutional ceiling: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton sustained age checks only for material obscene as to minors, and the district courts have spent the year since enjoining every attempt to stretch that authorization across general-audience platforms. Government content-prominence mandates fare no better, because Moody v. NetChoice holds that curation is protected editorial judgment and that a State may not conscript a platform to rebalance the speech market. The paper then identifies the doctrinal engine a distributor duty can run on: the symmetry between Moody and Anderson v. TikTok. If the curated feed is the platform’s own expressive product when the platform claims constitutional protection, it is the platform’s own first-party conduct when the question is accountability, and Section 230 does not stand in the way. The paper’s contribution is a distributor verification duty, scaled to platform capacity, that requires a platform to verify its own child-directed classifications rather than trust a creator’s checkbox, paired with a narrow adult tier gated by privacy-preserving age assurance rather than surveillance. The whole-video scanning that platforms already run for advertiser safety proves the capability

Keywords

  • child safety
  • age assurance
  • zero-knowledge proof
  • Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
  • Moody v. NetChoice
  • Anderson v. TikTok
  • Section 230
  • duty of care
  • content moderation
  • First Amendment
  • platform design

Plain language slides

First slide of the plain language summary of The Distributor's Burden: Platform Verification Duties, Privacy-Preserving Age Assurance, and the Constitutional Ceiling on Online Child-Safety DesignOpen the 16-slide summary (PDF)

Suggested citation

Gilly, Travis. "The Distributor's Burden: Platform Verification Duties, Privacy-Preserving Age Assurance, and the Constitutional Ceiling on Online Child-Safety Design." Real Safety AI Foundation Working Draft, July 2026. https://realsafetyai.org/research/distributors-burden/

Other versions

This paper is also posted on SSRN.

SSRN version

References (39)

This paper cites its sources in footnotes. Each authority is listed once, where it is first cited, with its footnote number.

  1. Footnote 1.Dep’t for Culture, Media & Sport, Watch This Space: A New Strategic Direction for UK Media (2026).
  2. Footnote 1.James O’Toole, YouTube Urges Creators To Fight Proposed UK Algorithm Changes, Dexerto (July 4, 2026), https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/youtube-urges-creators-to-fight-proposed-uk-algorithm-changes-3383111/ (last visited July 5, 2026).
  3. Footnote 2.15 U.S.C. §§6501–6506
  4. Footnote 2.Fed. Trade Comm’n, Google and YouTube Will Pay Record $170 Million for Alleged Violations of Children’s Privacy Law (Sept. 4, 2019), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2019/09/google-youtube-will-pay-record-170-million-alleged-violations-childrens-privacy-law (last visited July 5, 2026).
  5. Footnote 3.Internet Matters, The Online Safety Act: Are Children Safer Online? (2026).
  6. Footnote 3.Zack Whittaker, Some Kids Are Bypassing Age-Verification Checks With a Fake Mustache, TechCrunch (May 6, 2026), https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/06/some-kids-are-bypassing-age-verification-checks-with-a-fake-mustache/ (last visited July 5, 2026).
  7. Footnote 4.Free Speech Coal., Inc. v. Paxton, 606 U.S. 461 (2025).
  8. Footnote 6.Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 875 (1997)
  9. Footnote 6.Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004).
  10. Footnote 7.Paxton, 606 U.S. 461.
  11. Footnote 8.NetChoice v. Miyares, No. 1:25-cv-02067 (E.D. Va. Feb. 27, 2026) (preliminary injunction).
  12. Footnote 8.576 U.S. 155, 163, 170 (2015)
  13. Footnote 9.Miyares, No. 1:25-cv-02067.
  14. Footnote 9.564 U.S. 786, 794–95 (2011)
  15. Footnote 10.NetChoice v. Griffin, No. 5:25-cv-05140 (W.D. Ark. Dec. 15, 2025)
  16. Footnote 10.NetChoice, LLC v. Yost, No. 2:24-cv-00047 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 16, 2025) (permanently enjoining a parental-consent social-media access statute).
  17. Footnote 12.Ctr. for Democracy & Civic Engagement, Univ. of Md., Who Lacks ID in America Today? (2024), https://cdce.umd.edu/ (last visited July 5, 2026)
  18. Footnote 12.VoteRiders, Who Didn’t Have Photo ID in 2020? (2023), https://voteriders.org/article/why-americans-dont-have-id/ (last visited July 5, 2026).
  19. Footnote 14.Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707, 731, 740 (2024).
  20. Footnote 14.418 U.S. 241, 258 (1974)
  21. Footnote 15.Moody, 603 U.S. 707.
  22. Footnote 17.Anderson v. TikTok, Inc., 116 F.4th 180 (3d Cir. 2024).
  23. Footnote 17.47 U.S.C. §230(c)(1).
  24. Footnote 19.Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2019).
  25. Footnote 21.YouTube, Advertiser-Friendly Content Guidelines, https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278 (last visited July 5, 2026)
  26. Footnote 21.YouTube, Inappropriate Language: Advertiser-Friendly Guidelines, https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9725604 (last visited July 5, 2026).
  27. Footnote 23.Netchoice, LLC v. Bonta, 113 F.4th 1101 (9th Cir. 2024).
  28. Footnote 23.471 U.S. 626 (1985).
  29. Footnote 24.Bonta, 113 F.4th 1101.
  30. Footnote 26.Online Safety Act 2023, c. 50 (UK)
  31. Footnote 26.Kids Online Safety Act, S. 1409, 118th Cong. (2023).
  32. Footnote 27.Shuang Liu & Sarah Scheffler, Adequately Tailoring Age Verification Regulations (arXiv:2601.20241, 2026)
  33. Footnote 27.Wojciech Wodo, Maksymilian Górski & Lucjan Hanzlik, Age Verification in the Web: Holy Grail to Control Access to Restricted Content (arXiv:2605.05513, 2026).
  34. Footnote 28.Google, New Age and Identity Verification Features in Google Wallet (2025), https://blog.google/products/google-pay/google-wallet-age-identity-verifications/ (last visited July 5, 2026).
  35. Footnote 28.Bjorn Oude Roelink, Mohammed El-Hajj & Dipti Kapoor Sarmah, Systematic Review: Comparing zk-SNARK, zk-STARK, and Bulletproof Protocols for Privacy-Preserving Authentication, 7 Security & Privacy e401 (2024).
  36. Footnote 29.OECD, Emerging Privacy-Enhancing Technologies: Current Regulatory and Policy Approaches (2023), https://doi.org/10.1787/bf121be4-en (last visited July 5, 2026).
  37. Footnote 31.Gabriel Panis, Andreas Lanitis, Nicolas Tsapatsoulis & Timothy F. Cootes, Overview of Research on Facial Ageing Using the FG-NET Ageing Database, 5 IET Biometrics 37 (2016).
  38. Footnote 33.Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm’n, Equifax to Pay $575 Million as Part of Settlement with FTC, CFPB, and States Related to 2017 Data Breach (July 22, 2019), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2019/07/equifax-pay-575-million-part-settlement-ftc-cfpb-states-related-2017-data-breach (last visited July 5, 2026).
  39. Footnote 39.Anderson v. TikTok, Inc., 116 F.4th 180 (3d Cir. 2024), with Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2019).

All research