That seems pretty annoying for people who sell computing appliances like smart toasters, routers, and televisions, and videogame consoles—do they preemptively start implementing in case a judge decides they are covered? Why not write an easy-to-interpret law in the first place?
You couldn’t really write a law that is easy to interpret in all cases and that is completely unambiguous.
Could the law be better written? Probably. But at some point there will always be a grey area that needs to be slowly defined through jurisprudence and case law.
The GE smart wall oven could meet the definition. I’m genuinely unsure which way a judge would rule. For ovens which do not provide an App Store, I cannot tell what the intent of AB 1043 should be.
> The GE smart wall oven could meet the definition. I’m genuinely unsure which way a judge would rule.
> or ovens which do not provide an App Store, I cannot tell what the intent of AB 1043 should be.
- Does the oven have an "account setup" process?
- Does the phrase "the user of that device" make sense for this oven?
- Does "the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store" make sense for this oven?
- Does "to provide a developer, as defined, who has requested a signal" seem relevant to this oven?
For example, if GE assumes some risk and issues an OS update, then the oven will ask the users age. GE would at that point be capable of limiting functionality based on age. But the bill is not enforced against GE, but the OS maintainer.
I assume you're aware that many "smart" devices these days have a full blown OS, a web browser, and an app store. But then some are missing or have only partial functionality here or there. If the law doesn't unambiguously specify what it applies to it puts anyone in the grey area in a difficult position.
While we're at it, does fdroid count as the sort of app store that this law cares about? Because an end user can install that for themselves.
