Page history

Why: This event (and its frontmatter description, 'AB 1856, which requires operating systems to send apps an age-bracket signal,' plus the lawsrulings entry note 'Amended by AB 1856 to require operating-system age-bracket signals') attributes the age-at-setup collection and four-bracket signal requirement to AB 1856. But California Digital Age Assurance Act states that requirement was created by the original Act (AB 1043), signed by Newsom on 2025-10-13 — a full year before this event — and that AB 1856 only 'removed the original definition that limited a "user" to a child who is a device's primary user, so that signals cover users of all ages, and exempted open-source operating systems.' Gavin Newsom corroborates this: it separately credits the 2025 AB 1043 signing with establishing the age-signal system and describes the 2026 AB 1856 only as having 'amended the Digital Age Assurance Act.' The event should describe AB 1856 as extending the existing age-signal requirement to all users (not just minors) and adding an open-source exemption, not as the origin of the collect-age/send-signal mechanism.

Why: This is an editorial judgment ('most far-reaching') presented as settled fact, but none of the cited sources make this comparative claim about AB 1709 versus the other bills in the package (AB 2, AB 1856, SB 1119, SB 867). This reads as the entry's own unsupported characterization rather than a documented assessment, which runs against the project's neutral-documentation standard.

Why: "Most far-reaching" is an unattributed evaluative characterization rather than a sourced fact — none of the cited sources rank the bill's scope this way. A neutral alternative would describe it factually, e.g. "The bill with the broadest restrictions on social media features is AB 1709" with attribution, or simply let the described scope (bars personalized feeds, autoplay, and push notifications for under-16 users) speak for itself without a superlative framing.