I'm not against this, but I do believe such a header would give parents a false sense of security in what they can allow their children to do on the internet.

I'm not against this, but I do believe such a header would give parents a false sense of security in what they can allow their children to do on the internet. Then again, for those of us who are skeptical that such a program can work, I'm guessing we already aren't or do not plan to allow our kids on the internet without supervision, so it's a bit of a moot point for me. I'm just annoyed that there is a certain set of incentives that allow for people to ignorantly trust the security and safety of various websites and applications, and then get some sort of reward/handout in the form of a class-action lawsuit against these services when they're finally caught failing to live up to the proposed safety regulations. So every idiot who had an account can line up for $20, and I get zero reward for correctly avoiding the situation by not signing up. These are perverse incentives IMO, and I'll just continue to be annoyed with all solutions that continue to allow this sort of thing to happen. Under your proposal, there's an inevitable lawsuit where a bunch of people get paid out for allowing their children to get goatse'd because 'kidpxrn.biz' falsely put on the safe-for-kidz header. Sure, they got sued, but a bunch of kids got goatse'd in the process, and their parents got $20. Cool future, I guess.