Law / Age gating
Age gating law, instrument by instrument
Law that makes online services check or estimate a user's age, or design for the children who may use them: age verification for adult content, limits on minors' social media accounts, age checks at the app store, and age-appropriate design codes. In practice, a design code can apply to a general-purpose app simply because children are likely to use it.
Every age gating law instrument LexLint holds, grouped by the jurisdiction that made it. Choose which stages of law to show: the map, the counts and the tables all answer to that choice. To see every area of law, follow Law in the breadcrumb above.
- 1
- 5
- 10
- 20+
- instruments shown
- law on file, none at these stages
- tracked, no law on file
- not tracked
Unions3 in 1 jurisdiction
Law made above the state, binding its members.
| Instrument | When |
|---|---|
 European Union
eu
3 instruments
| |
| Digital Services Act (DSA), Article 28 (Online protection of minors)Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, Article 28 | since |
| Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD), Articles 6a and 28bDirective 2010/13/EU, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/1808, Articles 6a and 28b | since |
| European Digital Identity Regulation (eIDAS2)Regulation (EU) 2024/1183, amending Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 (eIDAS) | from , in 7 weeks |
| EU KIDS Act proposal (Keeping Internet Digital Spaces Accountable and Trustworthy)COM(2026) 681 final | proposed |
Countries131 in 80 jurisdictions
Grouped by region, the European Union heading its member states as a block; alphabetical within each group.
United States: states76 in 39 jurisdictions
Law made below the national level, binding inside it. The slug beside each name says which tier it is.
Canada: provinces2 in 2 jurisdictions
Law made below the national level, binding inside it. The slug beside each name says which tier it is.
| Instrument | When |
|---|---|
| Ontario ca/on 0 instruments | |
| Bill 137, Keeping Our Kids Safe Online Act, 2026Bill 137, An Act to create a committee respecting the online safety of children, 1st Session, 44th Legislature | proposed |
| Bill 138, Social Media Age Restriction Plan Act, 2026Bill 138, An Act to establish a plan to implement social media age restrictions, 1st Session, 44th Legislature | proposed |
| Québec ca/qc 1 instrument | |
| Consumer Protection Act, commercial advertising directed at persons under thirteenCQLR c P-40.1, ss. 248-249 | in force |
| Saskatchewan ca/sk 1 instrument | |
| Film Content Information Act, age restrictions on adult filmsS.S. 2024, c. 2, ss. 6-7 | since |
Brazil: states3 in 1 jurisdiction
Law made below the national level, binding inside it. The slug beside each name says which tier it is.
| Instrument | When |
|---|---|
| Goiás br/goias 3 instruments | |
| Goiás Law No. 24.085/2026, State Week of Awareness of the Use of Social Networks by Children and AdolescentsLei Estadual nº 24.085, de 10 de fevereiro de 2026 (Goiás) | since |
| Goiás Law No. 23.682/2025, State Policy of Parental Control of the Access of Children and Adolescents to the InternetLei Estadual nº 23.682, de 17 de setembro de 2025 (Goiás) | since |
| Goiás Law No. 23.460/2025, State Policy for the Protection of Children and Adolescents against Harmful Games and Dangerous Challenges in Virtual EnvironmentsLei Estadual nº 23.460, de 6 de junho de 2025 (Goiás) | since |
What this page claims, and what it does not
The stages are the in-force tag's. Each filter is one of the
states the tag names across lexlint.io, in its words (in force, not yet in
force, blocked by a court, proposed, no longer in force, and never in force),
and each filter's label wears that tag's mark. In the tables a law in force
is unmarked, its date in plain text, and every other law wears the same tag
the rest of lexlint.io draws: highlighted, boxed, dotted, or struck with its
reason underlined. A withdrawn bill has a filter of its own, never in force:
the /law/<jurisdiction> docket leaves it out, and "no
longer in force" would be false of a law that never was.
Blocked by a court has its own filter. A law a court has blocked is neither in force nor gone: an injunction can be lifted on appeal, and the duty with it. Pooled with a repeal it would hide a count that reads as a signal, how contested a jurisdictional hook is. It is off by default, with the proposals and the laws that have ended.
One date column, and it says what kind of date it is. The date is the day the law started or starts to bind: the earlier of a published start date and the instrument's own date. Neither source is reliably the start, and the earlier one cannot make a law look newer than it is. The column draws the in-force tag, so a bare date never stands beside a law that has stopped: a law in force reads "since" its date, a law not yet in force is highlighted with its date and how far off it is, a law a court has blocked is boxed in red, and an ended law has its dates struck and its reason underlined. Nothing is inferred from our own review date.
The map is the table. Its fill is the count of instruments at the
stages you chose, binned on the same RAMP_BINS edges
/law/map uses, and it redraws on
every change. Point at, click, or tab to a jurisdiction for what applies there,
every stage it holds shown even when your filter is excluding it.
Three ways of showing nothing, and they are different claims. A jurisdiction washed pale holds age gating law your filter is excluding, so widening the filter brings it back. A hatched jurisdiction is one we track and hold no age gating law for at all: that is a statement about our research, not about the law. A white shape has no jurisdiction record for this topic at all. Only the first of the three moves when you change the filter; the other two are facts about us and hold still.
Nothing here needs the script. The default resultset is in the
HTML: counts, tally, map fills and the hidden rows are all rendered at
build. The script recomputes them when a box changes and does nothing else,
which is what lets this page ship under script-src 'self' and
be read whole by a crawler.
Every instrument here links its own note page, which carries the primary source and the date it was read. This is a research index, not legal advice.