

Yes, but only insomuch as laws that protect minors impose additional constraints on those who have “actual knowledge” that a user is actually a child.
So, if I understand right, basically they assume its correct unless given significant evidence otherwise? So like, if this flag is enabled and I visit a website and don’t directly provide personal information, then they have to assume I am a child under CCPA and thus can’t share my data. Right?
Statr law can expand upon federal law but not contradict. And it smells like AB1043 is more “add a more explicit signal of user age” than anything affecting data retention relating to children.
What part do you think is contradictory?
I was wondering more if they could just argue that it isn’t an reliable metric and thus was ignored for COPPA if it ever came up in Federal court - esspecially if adults end up using the flag for CCPA or Civil Code protections. As opposed to in California law, where it is assumed to be true unless shown otherwise.


Thank you for the help understanding this.