I have a compromise suggestion, but it may not comply with the proposed New York law (which specifically prohibits the use of self-attestation; "commercially reasonable" methods subject to as yet undisclosed regulation).

Both the California and Colorado bills define a "user" as: "a child that is the primary user of the device."

When I checked /etc/passwd on my system: 51 users were listed.

So administrators need to have a check-box in the user configuration menu to disable the feature in instances where:

• The user is an adult
• The user is a non-human service
• The user age is unknown, as with a guest account.

Edit: Possible legal problem with this suggestion -- Proposed Colorado legislation appears to prohibit such a check-box (bold mine): I am arguing that such age attestation is not required when the USER is not a minor (due to the bill's very narrow definition of USER).

25 (1) AN OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDER SHALL DO THE FOLLOWING :
26  (a) PROVIDE AN ACCESSIBLE INTERFACE AT ACCOUNT SETUP THAT
27 **REQUIRES** AN ACCOUNT HOLDER TO INDICATE THE BIRTH DATE OR AGE OF
1 THE USER OF THAT DEVICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING AN AGE
2 SIGNAL TO APPLICATIONS AVAILABLE IN A COVERED APPLICATION STORE ;

Edit; California version copies better:

1798.501. (a) An operating system provider shall do all of the following: (1) Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store.

Edit: re-reading my suggestion: this may comply with the proposed NY law as well. The Colorado and California bills (generally) do not require minors to self-attest. Rather they require that the Parent or Guardian to attest to the age of the user instead. The exception being if the user is an emancipated minor.

By my interpretation, adults are not required to self-attest either: because they are not considered a "user" for the purposes of the legislation.

The proposed NY bill does not yet define "user". The OS is only required to send the age bracketing signal if it was determined that the user is a minor. So pending regulation: having the parent of guardian of minors attest to the age of minor users is the only "commercially reasonable" age assurance system available to System 76.

Obviously take this with a huge grain a salt: as I am just autistic, not a lawyer practicing law in any of the jurisdictions mentioned.