Committee advances device‑level age‑attestation bill after heated testimony and amendments; vote 7–6

The House Business Affairs and Labor Committee on April 23 advanced Senate Bill 26‑051, a proposal to create an operating‑system level "age signal" that would communicate a user's age bracket to apps and app stores, after several hours of technical questioning, 25+ witnesses, and three amendments. The committee voted 7–6 to send the bill as amended to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.

Sponsors and the Department of Law described the bill as age attestation — not age verification — intended to give parents a privacy‑forward tool so apps treat minors' data differently under Colorado law. "It is an age attestation bill, not an age verification bill," Rep. Pascal told the committee, and sponsors emphasized amendments that exempt open‑source projects and carve out family account flows for streaming services.

Opponents — many of them software engineers, open‑source contributors and privacy advocates — told legislators the proposal is technically flawed, risks centralizing control with major platform vendors, and could increase, rather than reduce, risky data collection. "The signal is not privacy preserving," testified Joshua Holland, a tech industry engineer. "The bill calls this an age bracket signal, but it functionally reveals exact birthdays." Several witnesses warned the law could chill development, lock out legacy hardware, and create new attack surfaces.

Committee amendments adopted during the hearing included L005 (fixing cross‑references), L006 (family‑account language to address streaming services' sub‑account models) and L004 as amended (a strike‑below narrowing scope and exempting open‑source ecosystems). Those changes were described by sponsors and Section staff as the result of stakeholder conversations since the bill left the Senate.

Supporters including the Department of Law and some advocacy groups said the bill provides a consistent, statewide signal for apps to honor children's privacy protections under the Colorado privacy framework. Industry witnesses were split: some commercial platform representatives voiced support for the amended bill while many independent developers and open‑source contributors urged the committee to reject or substantially rewrite it.

The committee's final motion to advance SB 26‑051, as amended, passed 7–6 on a roll call. Committee members who supported the motion cited the bill's narrow, privacy‑forward design and the need for a consistent signal so platforms cannot claim ignorance when minors are harmed; opponents raised constitutional, privacy and enforceability concerns and argued the change could empower large platforms or create new vulnerabilities.

What happens next: SB 26‑051 will be considered by the Committee of the Whole; sponsors said they will continue stakeholder engagement and monitoring of implementation details as the bill moves forward.