# Should we add a new case for age verification? **URL:** \ **Category:** Case Discussions\ **Tags:** tosdr, phoenix, case, new-case\ **Created:** [March 21, 2026, 6:35pm UTC](https://tosdr.community/t/should-we-add-a-new-case-for-age-verification/3445 "2026-03-21T18:35:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Dr\_Jeff](https://tosdr.community/user_avatar/tosdr.community/dr_jeff/32/2728_2.png) [@Dr\_Jeff](https://tosdr.community/u/Dr_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2026, 6:35pm UTC](https://tosdr.community/t/should-we-add-a-new-case-for-age-verification/3445/1 "2026-03-21T18:35:49Z")
## Reasoning Given the increasingly alarming trend of governments passing laws to force online age verification, and online services starting to include said enforcements in their ToS (e.g. [Fluxer](https://edit.tosdr.org/services/11685/annotate#doc_23499)), I’m thinking we should be up to date with the state of affairs by adding a new case that indicates its inclusion in a service’s policies. * * * ## Checklist With all being said, I wanted your feedback regarding the case’s specifics: - What rating should we give to it? Positive, Negative, or Blocker? - What weight shall be given to that case? - In what topic shall this belong to? - How will it be named? - What description should be given? I’m not deeply invested in this issue, but I know a lot of people are worried about these measures and don’t have a good view of these. Hence why I’m asking for your input. ---
**Author:** ![shadowwwind](https://tosdr.community/user_avatar/tosdr.community/shadowwwind/32/1749_2.png) [@shadowwwind](https://tosdr.community/u/shadowwwind)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2026, 7:01pm UTC](https://tosdr.community/t/should-we-add-a-new-case-for-age-verification/3445/3 "2026-03-21T19:01:47Z")
This case already covers verifying provided PII [Terms of Service; Didn't Read - Phoenix](https://edit.tosdr.org/cases/492) applying it and [https://edit.tosdr.org/cases/152](https://edit.tosdr.org/cases/152) would provide very similar information. However I do see that there is extended interest in this topic. ---
**Author:** ![Dr\_Jeff](https://tosdr.community/user_avatar/tosdr.community/dr_jeff/32/2728_2.png) [@Dr\_Jeff](https://tosdr.community/u/Dr_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2026, 7:28pm UTC](https://tosdr.community/t/should-we-add-a-new-case-for-age-verification/3445/4 "2026-03-21T19:28:38Z")
> [@shadowwwind](#): > > This case already covers verifying provided PII [Terms of Service; Didn’t Read - Phoenix](https://edit.tosdr.org/cases/492) > > applying it and [https://edit.tosdr.org/cases/152](https://edit.tosdr.org/cases/152) > > would provide very similar information. I get what you’re saying, but I believe our duty is to be as clear and concise to the end user as possible. While us internally may be able to (somewhat) understand what each case implies, common users may not make the connection necessarily, nor should they be expected to. Therefore adding a case that explicitly relates to this is, in my opinion, in the users’ best interest. Initially we could edit/extend the wording for any of such cases to include this topic, but that would certainly compromise the quality of many reviewed points with said cases. I’m a firm believer that we should avoid having cases with optional wording (“and/or” or “with/without”, etc), and instead split them into separate cases. This is to avoid confusion. Also we cannot (nor should) rely on users going out of their way to read a specific case’s description on Phoenix. You and I know that people stick with first impressions (I’d argue this is in ToS;DR’s core philosophy). ---
**Author:** ![Dr\_Jeff](https://tosdr.community/user_avatar/tosdr.community/dr_jeff/32/2728_2.png) [@Dr\_Jeff](https://tosdr.community/u/Dr_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2026, 4:36am UTC](https://tosdr.community/t/should-we-add-a-new-case-for-age-verification/3445/5 "2026-03-24T04:36:36Z")
@shadowwwind What do you think? ---
**Author:** ![shadowwwind](https://tosdr.community/user_avatar/tosdr.community/shadowwwind/32/1749_2.png) [@shadowwwind](https://tosdr.community/u/shadowwwind)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2026, 10:13pm UTC](https://tosdr.community/t/should-we-add-a-new-case-for-age-verification/3445/6 "2026-03-26T22:13:56Z")
Let’s collect some quotes from legal documents and see how they talk about it. Right now I think in the direction of: Title: “This service requires proof of your age to access adult-only content or features” Classification: Neutral Why neutral? I am very for age gating addictive sites like gambling. So if it is good or bad really depends on the service. And privacy wise it really depends on the method and I believe how private the method is should be covered by a second point like [Terms of Service; Didn't Read - Phoenix](https://edit.tosdr.org/cases/397) ---
**Author:** ![Dr\_Jeff](https://tosdr.community/user_avatar/tosdr.community/dr_jeff/32/2728_2.png) [@Dr\_Jeff](https://tosdr.community/u/Dr_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2026, 4:41am UTC](https://tosdr.community/t/should-we-add-a-new-case-for-age-verification/3445/7 "2026-03-27T04:41:41Z")
> [@shadowwwind](#): > > Why neutral? I am very for age gating addictive sites like gambling. So if it is good or bad really depends on the service. Completely agree, shouldn’t be a penalty for services in which this is, more likely than not, justified. * * * > [@shadowwwind](#): > > And privacy wise it really depends on the method and I believe how private the method is should be covered by a second point like [Terms of Service; Didn’t Read - Phoenix](https://edit.tosdr.org/cases/397) I suppose this is a case-by-case thing depending on how age verification is being performed… ---
**Author:** ![shadowwwind](https://tosdr.community/user_avatar/tosdr.community/shadowwwind/32/1749_2.png) [@shadowwwind](https://tosdr.community/u/shadowwwind)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2026, 10:50pm UTC](https://tosdr.community/t/should-we-add-a-new-case-for-age-verification/3445/8 "2026-03-30T22:50:11Z")
@Agnes_de_Lion reminded me that we don’t really want to have “the service” in the title, so I offer to options: _Poll ([view on site](https://tosdr.community/t/should-we-add-a-new-case-for-age-verification/3445/8))_ ---
**Author:** ![Dr\_Jeff](https://tosdr.community/user_avatar/tosdr.community/dr_jeff/32/2728_2.png) [@Dr\_Jeff](https://tosdr.community/u/Dr_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2026, 6:07pm UTC](https://tosdr.community/t/should-we-add-a-new-case-for-age-verification/3445/9 "2026-03-31T18:07:16Z")
> [@shadowwwind](#): > > reminded me that we don’t really want to have “the service” in the title Shouldn’t we, then, work on renaming other cases that have this caveat? There’s quite a few of these. ---
**Author:** ![Dr\_Jeff](https://tosdr.community/user_avatar/tosdr.community/dr_jeff/32/2728_2.png) [@Dr\_Jeff](https://tosdr.community/u/Dr_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2026, 9:50pm UTC](https://tosdr.community/t/should-we-add-a-new-case-for-age-verification/3445/10 "2026-03-31T21:50:14Z")
@shadowwwind How about this: - Title: _Proof of your age is required to access some (or all) features_ - Rating: Neutral - Weight: 60 - Topic: [Personal Data](https://edit.tosdr.org/topics/41) - Description: _Commonly known as “age verification”, you’ll have to provide your personal data to be able to access some (or all) features provided by a given service. Some of this data might be of a sensitive nature._ * * * ## Reason For Title Change Some services will certainly need age verification to access them entirely. Thoughts? ---
**Author:** ![retineye](https://tosdr.community/user_avatar/tosdr.community/retineye/32/2638_2.png) [@retineye](https://tosdr.community/u/retineye)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2026, 3:14am UTC](https://tosdr.community/t/should-we-add-a-new-case-for-age-verification/3445/11 "2026-04-02T03:14:33Z")
Hope you don’t mind me adding my 2c. So far I’m seeing 3 different kinds of Age Verification and they radically vary in invasiveness/security concern. 1. You provide non-identifying proof of age (just self-reporting “I am over 18”; or buying some kind of proof where your name/card/the point of the purchase aren’t known to the vendors or service, ala Japan’s conbini ticket system) 2. You must provide legal id, facial scan, or other sensitive legal documents to the service 3. Your behavior using the service is monitored extensively to automatically inference your age And, once that data is collected, what happens to it (sent to third party, stored indefinitely, etc) also greatly increases or decreases the risk factor. Maybe other existing cases already cover these details, but I thought it might be worth bringing up how different the rating would be for each, despite falling under the same language of “proof of your age is required to access adult-only content or features”. ---
**Author:** ![shadowwwind](https://tosdr.community/user_avatar/tosdr.community/shadowwwind/32/1749_2.png) [@shadowwwind](https://tosdr.community/u/shadowwwind)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2026, 3:18pm UTC](https://tosdr.community/t/should-we-add-a-new-case-for-age-verification/3445/12 "2026-04-03T15:18:02Z")
That’s why I would do it this way. This proposed case in my mind only covers _that prove is required_ and a second point about types of which data collected gets also added to each service. These cases already exists like the bio-metrics one mentioned above. So this case - \> proof is required (neutral) Case about biometrics - \> for services that do face scans. (Bad) ---
**Author:** ![Dr\_Jeff](https://tosdr.community/user_avatar/tosdr.community/dr_jeff/32/2728_2.png) [@Dr\_Jeff](https://tosdr.community/u/Dr_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2026, 8:38pm UTC](https://tosdr.community/t/should-we-add-a-new-case-for-age-verification/3445/13 "2026-05-09T20:38:33Z")
So should we split this into two? ---
**Author:** ![system](https://s3.tosdr.community/original/2X/a/a3a33872cc3bbba2093b58aec7533dcff56717c0.svg) [@system](https://tosdr.community/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2026, 2:00pm UTC](https://tosdr.community/t/should-we-add-a-new-case-for-age-verification/3445/14 "2026-07-13T14:00:14Z")