Question 1

Does the Stile flow comply with the verification language in TX HB 1181?

Accepted Answer

Stile's age-verification flow returns a signed eligibility signal backed by document scan + liveness + face match — Stile's implementation of the 'reasonable age verification' TX HB 1181 mandates. (The statute requires verification using government-issued ID or commercially reasonable transactional data; document + liveness + face match is one valid implementation, not a statutory mandate of the specific stack.) The signed webhook + per-session audit pointer is the artifact the Texas AG asks for during a compliance inquiry. Final compliance posture is the operator's call (your statute citations + retention policy + legal counsel sign-off), but the verification primitives are statute-grade.

Question 2

What does the operator actually retain to satisfy a state AG inquiry?

Accepted Answer

Per session: the signed webhook event, the eligibility decision, and the per-session audit pointer. The audit pointer is the artifact retained, not the underlying credential — see the security page for the per-account retention configuration. If a state AG opens an inquiry, the operator produces the per-session events for the disputed access; Stile holds the audit-pointer ↔ verification-result mapping for the contracted retention window.

Question 3

Some states require parental consent for under-18 access — does Stile handle that?

Accepted Answer

Indirectly. Stile returns the eligibility signal (e.g. under-18 with verification of age category). The parental-consent layer is a separate flow the operator implements: typically a parent-portal where a verified-adult consents on the minor's behalf. Stile can power the adult-side verification of the parent-portal handoff; the consent ledger itself is operator-side.

Question 4

How does Stile handle the spoof-attempt patterns adult-content platforms see?

Accepted Answer

Adult-content platforms see the highest concentration of synthesized-credential and replay attacks. Stile tunes the liveness threshold tighter than other verticals; the false-acceptance ceiling is tighter at the cost of slightly higher false-rejection. Operators can adjust per their conversion-vs-compliance tradeoff. Spoof signals are weighted into the eligibility decision but never exposed to the operator's frontend.

Question 5

What if a user in a state without an active statute hits the verification gate?

Accepted Answer

Configurable per operator. A common pattern: enable the verification gate for all US users (operator's policy is uniform across states; some non-active-statute states are likely to pass laws), or scope by IP geo-resolution to active-statute states only. Stile's SDK supports both — the per-state ruleset config drives which sessions trigger verification and which fall through to standard access flows.

State	Statute	Effective date	Enforcement mechanism
Texas	HB 1181	2023	AG civil action; up to $10,000/violation
Louisiana	Act 440	2022	Civil cause of action by parents
Utah	SB 287	2023	Civil cause of action; statutory damages
Arkansas	SB 66	2023	Civil action by parents; $10,000+/violation
Mississippi	HB 1126	2024	Civil + AG enforcement
Montana	SB 544	2024	Civil action; statutory damages
Virginia	SB 1515	2023	Civil cause of action
North Carolina	HB 8	2024	Civil action; AG supplemental
Idaho	HB 498	2024	Civil cause of action
Indiana	SB 17	2024	AG enforcement; civil penalties

Age-restricted commerce verification

Hard age verification for adult-content platforms under active state enforcement

Statute-grade verification

Hard liveness, hard face match

Retention semantics tuned for AG inquiries

How statute-compliant age verification flows

1. Mandatory verification gate

2. Document or mDL capture

3. Server-side verification

4. Eligibility signal + audit pointer

States with active age-verification statutes

Adult-content verification — buyer questions

Talk to compliance about your statute-compliant age-gate

Bring statute-grade age verification to your platform