Have other countries implemented similar online ID verification laws and what were the outcomes?
Executive summary
Countries across Europe, Oceania and beyond have begun mandating age- and identity-verification online: France required porn sites to verify users’ ages in June 2025 (document checks/biometric selfies) and the UK’s Online Safety Act age‑verification measures took effect July 2025, each forcing websites and platforms to use bank data, ID-photo matching or facial scans [1] [2] [3]. Australia and multiple EU initiatives are rolling out broader digital‑ID and age‑verification regimes through late 2025–2026, while dozens of countries are developing national digital‑ID systems that pair identity verification with many services [4] [5] [6].
1. What other countries have done: a rapid map
France, the United Kingdom and Australia are the clearest recent examples: France’s law required pornographic sites to implement robust age checks (document checks or biometric selfies) from June 2025 [2] [3]. The UK’s Online Safety Act — with Ofcom codes pushing “highly effective” age verification — came into force in July 2025 and specifies methods including bank‑data checks, ID photo matching or facial scans [1] [3]. Australia has been moving to require search engines and social platforms to verify age for access to adult or harmful content and is implementing related eSafety and digital‑ID changes scheduled in late 2025 [4] [2].
2. How governments are implementing the checks
Across these countries the technical approaches converge: document‑based identity proofing, selfie‑to‑ID biometric matching, facial‑recognition liveness checks and, in some contexts, verification via financial data. Regulators and industry are also experimenting with “double anonymity” models that aim to confirm only an age threshold without revealing site usage to the verifier [3] [7]. The EU is funding temporary white‑label age‑verification apps and rolling out eIDAS/eID wallet frameworks to standardize trusted digital credentials across member states [7] [5].
3. Intended outcomes and stated benefits
Policymakers frame these laws as protecting minors from explicit or harmful material and as modernizing trust in online services. The UK and France explicitly require “robust” verification to keep under‑18s out of adult content; Australia’s approach extends comparable restrictions to search and social platforms to limit minors’ exposure [1] [2] [4]. Proponents also say standardized digital IDs will reduce fraud and ease access to government and commercial services [5] [8].
4. Reported industry and privacy concerns
Industry and privacy‑focused sources cited in reporting highlight tradeoffs: many age‑checks demand sensitive data (biometrics, ID photos, banking info) and centralized verification systems raise questions about who controls and safeguards that data [1] [6] [3]. Some vendors promote privacy‑preserving architectures (e.g., the “double anonymity” model) but available sources note tensions remain between effectiveness and minimizing data exposure [3] [7].
5. Early results and real‑world outcomes — what reporting shows
Available reporting documents legal rollouts and technical choices but provides limited empirical post‑implementation outcomes. Sources confirm laws went into effect (France June 2025; UK July 2025; Australia measures scheduled late 2025) and describe vendor solutions and regulatory frameworks, but they do not offer systematic data on effectiveness in reducing youth access, levels of circumvention, fraud trends, or measurable privacy harms after implementation [1] [2] [4] [3]. In short: rollout is documented; comprehensive impact studies are not found in current reporting.
6. Global acceleration and variability
Beyond those three, many countries are advancing digital ID programs or age‑verification rules: EU member states are building digital wallets under eIDAS 2.0, several countries have national digital‑ID apps or programs (China, Brazil, Japan, Costa Rica and others noted in comparative reporting), and dozens of nations are described as building foundations for digital identity systems; approaches and privacy protections differ widely [5] [9] [10] [6].
7. What to watch next
Watch for: (a) technical standards and certification (e.g., Ofcom/DIATF and ETSI specs) that determine what counts as “highly effective” verification [7] [8]; (b) whether empirical studies surface showing reductions in minors’ access or increased data breaches; and (c) adoption of privacy‑preserving architectures like the double‑anonymity model, which regulators and industry have proposed but not uniformly deployed [3] [7].
Limitations: sources provided document laws, timelines and technical options but do not include peer‑reviewed impact evaluations, longitudinal data on efficacy or comprehensive breach reports after rollouts; those outcomes are “not found in current reporting” [1] [2] [4] [3].