I stopped reading after you said you asked a hallucination machine. On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 12:40 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Doubt it. Where an entity is domiciled or incorporated doesn't protect you. > 3 pieces of information. > > 1) The EU regularly fines US companies (much to the annoyance of the US > administration) > The company "operates" globally, and services EU customers. However the > company like Facebook or Apple being fined is American. The EU is in er... > the EU :) > > 2) The UK government has a similar Age Verifcation law. They tried to force > Imgur to apply it, > or be fined. Imgur said they would not comply, and simply blocked UK users > from accessing > their platform. See here: > https://help.imgur.com/hc/en-us/articles/41592665292443-Imgur-access-in-the-United-Kingdom > UK law. US company. Being in the US did not allow them to evade UK law. > > 3) I asked the AI: "does the California age verification law apply to > companies or entities outside the US" > > Answer: > > The California age verification law, specifically AB 1043 (Digital Age > Assurance Act), applies to any entity that makes a digital service available > to California residents, regardless of where the company is headquartered. > This means companies or entities outside the U.S. are subject to the law if > their services are accessible to users in California. > > Key points: > > The law targets digital services (including apps, operating systems, and > online platforms) used by California residents. > Jurisdiction is based on user location, not company location. If a company > offers services to users in California, it must comply with the law’s age > verification requirements. > The law does not require photo IDs or facial recognition—users can > self-report their age during device or account setup. > While the law is enforced by California’s Attorney General, its reach extends > globally due to the “California effect,” where companies often apply > compliance standards nationwide or worldwide to avoid managing multiple > systems. > However, enforcement against foreign entities may be challenging, and some > experts suggest companies might respond by blocking California IP addresses > or adding disclaimers like “Not for use in California” to avoid liability. > > > >> As many have pointed out, with varying levels of eloquence, I would > >> imagine that being incorporated in Canada might be of help here, in a > >> similar fashion to the issue of exporting encryption software, which > >> is illegal in the US, but not in Canada. > >> > >> Also in what way does the bill violate the constitution? Not > >> disagreeing, just wanting to meet you where you are here. > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 9:45 AM Gabe Bauer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Hello! > >>> > >>> I assume that somebody has likely already informed Theo about the new > >>> operating system level age verification law that takes effect in > >>> California starting January 1st of next year? > >>> > >>> There are also similar efforts making their way through Colorado and New > >>> York at the moment. > >>> > >>> Most pressingly, a bill with hefty fines for non compliance (about 9.6 > >>> million USD), which is enough to completely sink the OpenBSD Foundation > >>> and project, and it takes effect starting thirteen days from now. > >>> > >>> Are there any proposed solutions to this? > >>> > >>> I believe the Brazilian law is more stringent on what is required to > >>> comply with the measure, including, correct me if I am wrong, actual > >>> government ID submission, which is likely not feasible for a default > >>> OpenBSD installation. > >>> > >>> Does the OpenBSD project plan to implement the necessary measures to > >>> comply with these laws, or will they take the route of MidnightBSD, by > >>> simply stipulating in the license that people in these areas are not > >>> allowed to use the software? > >>> > >>> This is VERY important to me as I am sure it is to you, too, as I am sure > >>> all of us would like to see projects like this one to continue to exist. > >>> > >>> I am fairly certain that the California law likely violates the US > >>> constitution, but may go unchallenged. > >>> > >>> I am less certain about the constitutionality of the Brazilian law within > >>> its own borders. > >>> > >>> I hope this project does not suffer an unkind fate. Thank you for your > >>> attention to this matter!! > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Aaron Mason - Programmer, open source addict > >> I've taken my software vows - for beta or for worse > >> > >> > > > > > >
-- Aaron Mason - Programmer, open source addict I've taken my software vows - for beta or for worse
