AI content age-gating advisor
When an AI feature can generate content — especially open-ended or mature content — and might be accessed by minors, age assurance stops being optional. The AI content age-gating advisor takes a short description of your feature’s output and audience and returns your likely obligations under the UK Age Appropriate Design Code, the EU Digital Services Act, and COPPA, along with a ranked set of age-assurance options. It runs entirely in your browser.
How it works
You characterise the content your feature can produce (from general to explicit), how constrained the generation is, your target demographic, whether minors can plausibly reach the feature, and your operating jurisdictions. The advisor maps these against the triggers in each regime: the Children’s Code’s risk-based “likely to be accessed by children” test, the DSA’s expectation of proportionate age assurance for risky content, and COPPA’s rules on processing data of under-13s. It then returns the obligations you most likely face and ranks age-assurance options — self-declaration, age estimation, and verified age — by how strongly each satisfies a high-risk scenario, so you can choose a control that matches your risk level rather than over- or under-building.
The three main regimes at a glance
Understanding what triggers each regime helps you give this advisor accurate inputs:
UK Age Appropriate Design Code (Children’s Code) The Children’s Code applies to any online service “likely to be accessed by children” under 18 in the UK. This is a wide net — it is not limited to services aimed at children. The Code requires risk assessment and “high privacy” settings by default for features that children may reach. Where AI generation can produce content inappropriate for minors, default-off or age-assurance gating is expected.
EU Digital Services Act (DSA) The DSA imposes age-assurance obligations on platforms with systemic risk relating to minors, particularly where content recommendations or generative features could expose children to harm. Obligations scale with platform size and risk — very large platforms face the strictest expectations — but all providers benefit from assessing what proportionate age assurance looks like for their AI features.
US COPPA COPPA specifically targets collection of personal data from under-13s. If your AI feature processes any data from a child under 13 — including using their inputs as prompts, or personalising based on past interactions — COPPA’s consent requirements apply. A service that does not target children but could foreseeably attract them faces the “actual knowledge” standard.
Comparing age assurance options
| Method | How it works | Typical use |
|---|---|---|
| Self-declaration | User ticks “I am 18+“ | Low-risk general content; minimal friction |
| Age estimation | Infers age from signals (device, behaviour) | Medium risk; balances friction and confidence |
| Verified age | Identity document or credit card check | High-risk content; strong assurance required |
The advisor ranks these based on your risk inputs because a checkbox is legally inadequate for a feature that can produce explicit content, while a hard ID check is disproportionate for a general-purpose assistant.
Tips and notes
- Match assurance to risk. A checkbox is fine for low-risk general content but inadequate where the feature can produce mature material.
- Design for the youngest plausible user. The Children’s Code asks who is likely to access the feature, not who you intend to serve.
- Minimise children’s data. Strong age gating that then hoards minors’ data trades one problem for another — collect the least you can.
- Open-ended generation raises the risk bar. A feature that can produce anything in response to a free-text prompt is treated as potentially able to produce anything — including content unsuitable for minors.
- Treat this as scoping. Confirm conclusions with a qualified adviser; these regimes are evolving and enforcement is increasing.