Research & Commentary

Age assurance is entering a new phase. From the recent multistate Meta settlement and California legislation to New York’s final SAFE for Kids Act rules, broad requirements to protect youth online are now being translated into concrete requirements for how companies determine users’ ages, measure whether their systems work, and demonstrate compliance. As these implementation frameworks take shape, New York’s approach offers important early lessons for policymakers across jurisdictions developing their own age assurance rules.

The appeals in the United States v. Google search case hinge on a fundamental question: do the District Court’s remedies address the anticompetitive conduct that maintained Google’s search monopoly, or do they leave the market largely unchanged? Eight leading economists, legal experts, and technologists argue in an amicus brief that better remedies exist to help restore meaningful competition.

KGI’s Age Assurance Rules provides practical recommendations for designing age assurance rules that support youth online safety while appropriately accounting for tradeoffs involving privacy, service availability, competition, and openness.

KGI’s Assigning Responsibility for Age Assurance examines how policymakers can allocate responsibility for age assurance across the digital ecosystem. It provides practical recommendations for assigning age assurance obligations in ways that support youth online safety while appropriately accounting for tradeoffs involving privacy, competition, accessibility, and openness.

KGI’s Measuring Risk II report examines what EU risk assessments and US litigation reveal about Snap and YouTube’s approaches to risks on their platforms, with a particular focus on risks to minors. The report explores the gap between what these platforms publicly disclose about risk mitigation and what has emerged through discovery in US litigation, including their own internal research, product development, and risk evaluation.