More Data on Online Age Authentication Balk Rates

HotGarbage1 pts0 comments

More Data on Online Age Authentication Balk Rates - Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Menu<br>Biography

Academic Materials

Writing

Presentations

Resources

Courses

Advertising & Marketing Law

Contract Law

Copyright Law

Internet Law

IP Survey

Legal Ethics

Contact

Blogs

Tertium Quid Blog

Eric Goldman’s Personal Blog

About the Blogger

Browse: Home<br>" 2026<br>" July<br>" More Data on Online Age Authentication Balk Rates

More Data on Online Age Authentication Balk Rates

July 26, 2026 &middot; by Eric Goldman &middot; in Content Regulation, Privacy/Security

Created by ChatGPT May 2026

In a prior post, I surveyed the rates at which consumers do not complete online age authentication processes, what I call the "balk" rate. There is no single canonical balk rate. It varies by destination behind the authentication wall, the method of authentication, demographics, and many other factors.

In my prior post, I mentioned a study from a mostly Carnegie Mellon team. I had seen a summary of the study, but the full study has now been posted. It’s worth digging into the details a little deeper.

Balk Rates by Modality

In the context of trying to complete the academic study, this chart summarizes the study participants’ balk rates by authentication modality:

Note 1: "checkbox" is self-attestation. That’s not credibly considered "authentication."

Note 2: the email option said the process "analyzes the email’s registration source, associated employer information, and linked financial activities such as mortgages, credit cards, educational records, and consumer behavior patterns." Though data mining sounds scary, the actual mechanics were vague and required no further effort from the consumer. This rarely will be a realistic option.

If we remove the self-attestation and the incompletely described email review options, consumers balk rates were a minimum of 48%. Study participants were trying to participate in an academic study, not complete a mission-critical life task, but if actual balk rates come anywhere close to 48%, it will completely upend the current Internet.

The researchers also asked study participants to assess the likely efficacy of the various authentication methods. As you can see, consumers do not regard any of the techniques as particularly effective:

One participant quipped: “Chat gpt provide me an over 18 CA drivers license."

As a bonus, the researchers said that only 0.86% of the study participants checked the study’s privacy policy. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Blog Posts on Segregate-and-Suppress Obligations

Fifth Circuit Keeps Doing Fifth Circuit Things –SEAT v. Paxton

How Often Do Consumers Balk at Doing Online Age Authentication?

Court Enjoins Another Arkansas Segregate-and-Suppress Law–NetChoice v. Griffin

Too Many Courts Are Letting States Take Wrecking Balls to the Internet (Roundup)

Texas Judge Enjoins App Store Authentication Law–CCIA and SEAT v. Paxton

Courts Enjoin Internet Censorship Laws in Louisana and Arkansas

Challenge to Maryland’s “Kid Code” Survives Motion to Dismiss–NetChoice v. Brown

My Testimony Against Mandatory Online Age Authentication

Read the Published Version of My Paper Against Mandatory Online Age Authentication

Prof. Goldman’s Statement on the Supreme Court’s Demolition of the Internet in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton

Court Permanently Enjoins Ohio’s Segregate-and-Suppress/Parental Consent Law–NetChoice v. Yost

Arkansas’ Social Media Safety Act Permanently Enjoined—NetChoice v. Griffin

Why I Emphatically Oppose Online Age Verification Mandates

California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code (AADC) Is Completely Unconstitutional (Multiple Ways)–NetChoice v. Bonta

Another Conflict Between Privacy Laws and Age Authentication–Murphy v. Confirm ID

Recapping Three Social Media Addiction Opinions from Fall (Catch-Up Post)

District Court Blocks More of Texas’ Segregate-and-Suppress Law (HB 18)–SEAT v. Paxton

Comments on the Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton SCOTUS Oral Arguments on Mandatory Online Age “Verification”

California’s “Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act” Is Partially Unconstitutional…But Other Parts Are Green-Lighted–NetChoice v. Bonta

Section 230 Defeats Underage User’s Lawsuit Against Grindr–Doll v. Pelphrey

Five Decisions Illustrate How Section 230 Is Fading Fast

Internet Law Professors Submit a SCOTUS Amicus Brief on Online Age Authentication–Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton

Court Enjoins the Utah “Minor Protection in Social Media Act”–NetChoice v. Reyes

Another Texas Online Censorship Law Partially Enjoined–CCIA v. Paxton

When It Comes to Section 230, the Ninth Circuit is a Chaos Agent–Estate of Bride v. YOLO

Court Dismisses School Districts’ Lawsuits Over Social Media “Addiction”–In re Social Media Cases

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Key Part of the CA Age-Appropriate Design Code (the Rest is TBD)–NetChoice v. Bonta

Mississippi’s Age-Authentication Law Declared Unconstitutional–NetChoice v....

authentication online balk study rates netchoice

Related Articles