A bipartisan age verification bill introduced in the Colorado Senate would require adult entertainment platforms to deploy stricter tools to prevent minors from accessing sexual content online—but the legislation, Senate Bill 25-201, lacks any enforcement mechanism, raising questions about its effectiveness.

Sponsored by Sen. Lindsey Daugherty (D), Sen. Paul Lundeen (R), and Reps. Meghan Lukens (D) and Mandy Lindsay (D), the bill passed out of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee on March 27 with an 8-1 vote and now heads to the full Senate for further debate.

The bill mandates that websites classified as “covered platforms”—those knowingly publishing or distributing material “harmful to children”—must, by July 1, 2026:

• Use commercially available, independently certified age verification technologies;
• Undergo annual independent audits to confirm compliance with internationally recognized standards;
• Avoid relying solely on IP addresses to determine a user’s location, requiring additional geolocation measures;
• Provide an appeals process for users incorrectly flagged as underage;
• Ensure that any personal data collected for age verification is promptly destroyed in compliance with the Colorado Privacy Act.

Despite its ambitious scope, SB 25-201 does not include any enforcement mechanism. The bill does not specify penalties for noncompliance or identify an agency responsible for oversight. As written, it places obligations on platforms without defining how the state would compel action or handle violations.

Critics of the bill, including civil liberties and free speech advocates, have raised significant concerns.

Testifying before the Senate committee, Alison Boden and Mike Stabile of the Free Speech Coalition, along with Mandy Salley of the Woodhull Freedom Foundation, argued that the bill raises serious First Amendment and privacy issues—and may ultimately be rendered unconstitutional.

“In its present form, Free Speech Coalition has to oppose SB 201,” Boden said. “The bill is rife with free speech and privacy issues that the Supreme Court will be ruling on within the next three months.”

She also noted that the bill’s language defining material “harmful to minors” includes references to homosexuality, creating the potential for discriminatory application against LGBTQ content.

The ACLU of Colorado echoed these concerns, opposing the bill on similar constitutional grounds.

Iain Corby of the Age Verification Providers Association expressed support for the legislation, noting that it aligns with industry best practices.

“The bill requires what we already require in the industry,” Corby said. “There’s even one solution where you just wave your fingers around… and they can figure out your age with 99 percent certainty.”

The bill allows users to verify their age without disclosing identity, a feature intended to alleviate privacy concerns. Still, platforms would need to adopt sophisticated verification tools and integrate due diligence technologies to ensure users are located within Colorado’s boundaries.

SB 25-201’s fate may depend on the outcome of Free Speech Coalition et al. v. Paxton, a case currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, which will decide whether mandatory age verification laws like this one violate the Constitution. A ruling is expected within the next few months.

Until then, Colorado lawmakers are moving forward—cautiously—with what may be one of the most technically detailed but legally vulnerable age verification bills in the country.

If enacted, SB 25-201 would take effect in July 2026.