Three states moved in different directions on age verification legislation this week, illustrating how uneven and contested the state-level push remains even as its overall pace accelerates.
In Ohio, the state House Technology and Innovation Committee passed House Bill 84, known as the Innocence Act, by a unanimous vote. The bill is a revised attempt to close a loophole that has allowed major adult content platforms to avoid Ohio’s existing age verification requirement. Pornhub’s parent company, Aylo, has argued the original law does not apply to it because Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields platforms hosting user-generated content from liability. The revised legislation redefines which entities are subject to its provisions and establishes civil violations, with fines of up to $100,000 per day for non-compliance. Representatives Steve Demetriou and Josh Williams, who collaborated with Attorney General Dave Yost on the changes, said the bill could reach a full House floor vote this month.
In Kansas, the state Senate passed SB 372 by a 34-6 bipartisan margin. The bill would require app stores to verify the ages of users before allowing any application download, with parental consent required for users under 18. The measure would also bar apps from enforcing their standard terms of service against minors, a provision aimed at limiting liability waivers that are currently routine. Kansas lawmakers said they drafted the bill with awareness of a federal judge’s decision blocking a comparable Texas app store law in December 2025. The Kansas attorney general would be required to adopt formal age verification rules by October 2026.
In South Dakota, the Senate State Affairs Committee rejected HB 1275 on March 2, ending a bill that would have required app stores to link minors’ accounts to parental accounts and obtain consent for downloads. Opponents argued the bill would require all adults, not just minors, to present identification to major platform operators, and raised concerns about litigation given the legal struggles similar laws have faced elsewhere.
The divergence across the three states reflects a broader pattern: while a Supreme Court challenge to state online age verification laws remains pending, state legislatures are not waiting for binding federal guidance. Some are tightening existing frameworks and patching enforcement gaps; others are extending mandates to new contexts like app stores; and some are pulling back in anticipation of legal costs. The result is a fragmented national landscape where the obligations facing platforms vary substantially by state.
Sources: Statehouse News Bureau, The Beacon, SDPB
–
By the ID Tech Editorial Team
