It seems these laws are passed in the knowledge that they'd be ruled unconstitutional, but that fighting them would be too expensive for most companies (dollars

It seems these laws are passed in the knowledge that they'd be ruled unconstitutional, but that fighting them would be too expensive for most companies (dollars + secure storage of ID information + being attacked for being anti-child safety). Then you can just selectively enforce the law - and companies know it - to then unconstitutionally suppress speech. That said the title of the article is annoying - when I first saw it my immediate thought was "surely the parents paying for an internet connection their child[ren] use is parental consent?"