The bill (now) has a section defining "likely to be accessed by children" that provides 5 ways for that to be satisfied: 1) it is directed at children as define

The bill (now) has a section defining "likely to be accessed by children" that provides 5 ways for that to be satisfied: 1) it is directed at children as defined by some other law (which I haven't looked up but I believe is why YouTube now asks you constantly if your content is directed at children and then limits certain player features if it is), 2) someone does research showing it to be true (which is probably the most important one as it isn't clear how this state gets tripped in a way which notifies the business), 3) there are ads on the site clearly marketing towards children (which might be weird if you are an ad marketplace), 4) your website is similar in scope to a website someone already did the research for (in #2) to show that it is being used by children, or 5) if the company internally keeps statistics and realizes "oh no it is being accessed by children" (which to me is an argument to not keep statistics). I don't like this bill and think it is at best an example of the politicians' syllogism and at worst a trash fire of regulatory inefficiency, but it would be good to analyze and complain about the actual indicators mentioned in the bill now that they exist as otherwise the people working on this bill can (and in my experience will) discount your complaint as "we already fixed that".