In a growing trend among U.S. states, South Dakota has passed legislation with the goal to protect children from explicit online content. House Bill 1053 (HB 1053), South Dakota’s age verification law, introduces new compliance obligations for digital platforms hosting adult material. Here’s what businesses and users need to know.
What Is the South Dakota Age Verification Law?
The South Dakota Age Verification Law (HB 1053) requires websites and platforms that host pornographic or sexually explicit content to implement age verification measures. Its goal is to prevent minors from accessing harmful online material by shifting responsibility to platform operators and content distributors.
This legislation is part of a broader movement among states to regulate internet content more aggressively in the name of child protection.
When Does the South Dakota Age Verification Law Go Into Effect?
This South Dakota legislature is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2025 when it will require age verification for any applicable services. This gives affected platforms a limited window to prepare, assess their user verification systems, and ensure compliance.
How Does the Law Define Harmful Content and Covered Platforms?
The South Dakota Age Verification Law (HB 1053) uses a legal framework derived from the Miller Test, which is a standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court to define what constitutes “harmful content” for minors. Under this definition, content is considered harmful if it meets all three of the following criteria:
- Appeals predominantly to the prurient interest in sex
This means the material is intended to arouse or provoke sexual desire in a way that is deemed unhealthy or degrading, particularly for minors. It focuses on content that is overtly sexual in nature, rather than educational or medical. - Is patently offensive in its depiction or description of sexual conduct
The law targets content that portrays sexual acts or nudity in a blatantly offensive or explicit way, based on community standards. This includes graphic depictions of intercourse, masturbation, or sadomasochistic activity. - Lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors
Even if a work is sexual in nature, it may not be deemed harmful if it has legitimate educational, artistic, or cultural merit. For example, a sex education textbook or a critically acclaimed film might include sexual content but still be protected.
Platform Scope and the 33.3% Rule
Beyond defining content, the law sets a quantitative threshold for enforcement. It applies to websites or platforms where more than 33.3% (one-third) of their total content is deemed as material harmful to minors under the criteria above. This cutoff is significant for two reasons:
It casts a wide net. The threshold captures not just major adult entertainment sites but also forums, blogs, or fan-based platforms that host a substantial amount of user-generated explicit material.
It creates a compliance burden for borderline platforms. Websites that host mixed content (e.g., adult fan fiction sites, image boards, or even creators on subscription platforms) will need to carefully assess how much of their published material could be interpreted as harmful under the law.
This percentage rule also raises enforcement questions, such as how the proportion is calculated (by volume, traffic, or file count) and who makes the final judgment. However, the intent is clear: if adult content comprises a significant portion of a site’s offering, it falls under the law’s age verification mandate.
Verification Methods Required by Law
Under South Dakota’s HB 1053, platforms that provide access to harmful content must implement reliable, privacy-conscious age verification methods before granting users entry. The law sets a clear standard: passive or self-declared age gates are not enough. Instead, platforms must use methods that are reasonably calculated to ensure a user is legally an adult (18 or older).
Acceptable Verification Methods
The legislation does not mandate a specific technology, but it strongly implies the need to perform reasonable age verification, which includes objective, secure, and verifiable proof of age. Acceptable approaches may include:
Government-issued ID scanning
Platforms can request and verify an official document (e.g., passport, state-issued driver’s license or non-driver identification card, though the law also includes bank information as a possible verification method, to confirm a user’s age. This method is common but raises concerns over data security and user privacy if not handled correctly.
Third-party age verification services
Instead of building verification systems in-house, many companies turn to trusted third parties—like Ondato that specialize in age estimation, document validation, and compliance-ready identity workflows.
Digital ID checks and biometrics
In some cases, biometric verification (such as facial matching or liveness detection) may be used to validate the authenticity of a submitted document or confirm the user’s physical characteristics correspond to a minimum age threshold.
What the Law Explicitly Rejects
The law makes it clear that minimal-effort mechanisms like simple checkboxes or “Are you 18?” pop-ups are insufficient. These can no longer serve as the default for content-gating. Platforms must implement systems that can actually detect, verify, and enforce age restrictions with accuracy and accountability.
Ondato’s Age Verification Solutions
As platforms look to meet these new regulatory requirements without compromising on user experience or privacy, Ondato offers two standout solutions:
1. Ondato Age Estimation
Ondato’s AI-powered age estimation solution allows platforms to determine a user’s age based on facial analysis with no need for document uploads. It works by using advanced computer vision and neural networks to estimate whether a user appears to be above or below a predefined age threshold (e.g., 18+).
Key advantages:
- Frictionless experience for users (no ID required)
- High accuracy, especially in distinguishing minors from adults
- No storage of biometric data, enhancing privacy compliance
This method is ideal for platforms seeking a lightweight, low-barrier approach to age control that still aligns with the “reasonably calculated” standard required by law.
2. OnAge: Reusable Age Verification
OnAge is Ondato’s reusable age verification solution. Here’s how it works:
- A user verifies their age once via Ondato using a robust method (e.g., ID scan or facial scan).
- Ondato creates a privacy-safe credential indicating the user is age-verified.
- The user can re-use this credential on consecutive visits to the site for a set period of time, removing the need for repeated verifications.
Benefits include:
- Privacy-by-design: No raw data shared with third parties
- User convenience: One verification, many platforms
- Easy compliance: Helps platforms meet legal obligations without building their own infrastructure
In short, South Dakota’s law raises the bar on how age verification should be done—and Ondato provides the tools to help businesses rise to that challenge. Whether platforms need a low-friction estimation method or a reusable, cross-platform credentialing system, Ondato enables fast, scalable, and privacy-respecting compliance.
Who Must Comply With the Law?
Any individual or business that publishes or distributes adult content accessible in South Dakota falls under the law’s jurisdiction, regardless of where the entity is based. That means even out-of-state or international websites must comply if they attract users from South Dakota.
Penalties for Non-Compliance
South Dakota’s age verification law (HB 1053) may not impose criminal penalties, but it carries significant civil and reputational consequences for platforms that fail to comply.
Civil Liability: Lawsuits by Parents or Guardians
The law grants explicit rights to parents and legal guardians of minors to file lawsuits against platforms that allow underage access to harmful content without proper age verification. These lawsuits can seek:
- Monetary damages
- Injunctive relief (forcing platforms to shut down access or adopt better controls)
- Court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees
This private right of action means affected families don’t need to wait for government enforcement and can act on their own if their child accesses explicit material due to a platform’s negligence.
While no cases have yet been filed under HB 1053 (as it takes effect July 1, 2025), similar laws in other states have already led to litigation threats or legal action. For example:
- In Louisiana, adult content sites were threatened with lawsuits by parents for not implementing digital ID-based verification after the state passed its own age verification law.
- In Utah, several adult content platforms preemptively blocked access to users in the state rather than risk non-compliance and potential legal battles.
These cases show a clear trend: where there’s civil liability, there’s litigation risk and platforms are taking note.
Enforcement by the Attorney General
South Dakota’s Attorney General is also empowered to enforce the law through civil suits and regulatory action. This gives the state the ability to:
- Investigate and monitor platforms that appear to be non-compliant
- Issue fines, injunctions, or court orders to block access to certain content
- Publicly name violators, potentially causing reputational harm
Though the statute does not specify fine amounts, the threat of a government-backed lawsuit or court-ordered platform restriction is enough to create strong compliance incentives.
Reputational and Operational Risks
Even beyond lawsuits or fines, non-compliance can severely damage a brand’s reputation especially for companies whose audiences include teens, families, or educational institutions.
Key risks include:
- Loss of public trust
- Pressure from advertisers or payment processors
- Content takedowns or delistings from app stores
- Bans or geo-blocking from local ISPs, if the law evolves
This is especially critical for platforms that operate in multiple states. As more jurisdictions adopt similar laws, the cost of non-compliance could grow exponentially, with one violation leading to cascading lawsuits or enforcement across different legal territories.
In short, while South Dakota’s HB 1053 doesn’t involve jail time, it creates a strong system of civil deterrence backed by both private citizens and the state. For digital platforms, especially those hosting user-generated content or adult materials, investing in robust and legally sound age verification systems, like those offered by Ondato, is no longer optional. It’s a matter of operational survival.
Controversies and Criticisms
While proponents praise the law for safeguarding minors, critics argue it raises:
- Privacy concerns: Collecting government IDs or biometric data from users creates security risks and could deter lawful adult access.
- Free speech issues: Opponents, including digital rights groups and the Free Speech Coalition, warn that HB 1053 may have a chilling effect on online expression.
- Technical burdens: Small platforms may lack the resources to implement robust age verification, potentially stifling competition.
Some legal experts also question the constitutionality of state-level internet regulation that affects interstate commerce.
How South Dakota Compares to Other States
South Dakota joins a growing list of states like Utah, Texas, and Louisiana that have enacted age verification laws targeting social media platforms and the adult entertainment industry. However, variations exist:
- Texas and Utah: Use digital ID verification and place liability on both hosts and ISPs.
- Louisiana: Requires digital driver’s license integration for access.
Compared to others, South Dakota’s law is relatively moderate in terms of penalties but firm in defining what constitutes harmful content.
Final Thoughts
HB 1053 reflects a broader societal debate over youth safety, personal freedom, and online privacy. Whether this law sets a precedent or invites legal challenges remains to be seen. What’s clear is that platforms must act swiftly to evaluate content exposure, strengthen verification systems, and prepare for a changing compliance landscape in 2025.
FAQ
