How can the account holder violate the title when the title is not demanding anything of them? the whole document is about what the developer and OS distributor “shall” do… there’s no responsibility attached to the account holder. There’s no “shall” attached to the parent. At most all it says is that the OS provider shall offer an interface that requires the Account holder to enter their age… which again is a mandate directly addressing what the OS provider shall be responsible of doing, not the parent. I think it’s pretty clear that the document is targeting the OS providers & devs.
But sure, that’s only for an AG to interpret… until it happens, it seems to me that it would be silly to assume that parents are gonna start to get fined, until now the pressure has always been put into the service providers. And targeting something as “local” and easy to circumvent as an OS level question seems to me like a bad choice if they really wanted to put pressure on the parents with this.
How can the account holder violate the title when the title is not demanding anything of them? the whole document is about what the developer and OS distributor “shall” do… there’s no responsibility attached to the account holder. There’s no “shall” attached to the parent. At most all it says is that the OS provider shall offer an interface that requires the Account holder to enter their age… which again is a mandate directly addressing what the OS provider shall be responsible of doing, not the parent. I think it’s pretty clear that the document is targeting the OS providers & devs.
But sure, that’s only for an AG to interpret… until it happens, it seems to me that it would be silly to assume that parents are gonna start to get fined, until now the pressure has always been put into the service providers. And targeting something as “local” and easy to circumvent as an OS level question seems to me like a bad choice if they really wanted to put pressure on the parents with this.