Missouri’s new age-verification law went into effect on November 30, and while it currently targets online adult content, the language behind it is somewhat concerning. The concern isn’t that video games will suddenly require a driver’s license to launch, but rather that the infrastructure and political momentum behind these laws could easily expand to include video games and platforms that lawmakers view as “harmful to minors.”
For the gaming community, that possibility should be on the radar.
A Law Aimed At Adult Content (For Now)
Missouri’s rule is simple on paper: any website where one-third (33%) of the material is considered “harmful to minors” must verify that users are 18. In practice, the law is tailored almost exclusively toward adult content websites. It isn’t written with gaming in mind and doesn’t target mainstream entertainment or M-rated titles.
But this is also the first major state law of its type to roll out after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Texas’s nearly identical statute earlier this year. That ruling effectively green-lit age-verification regimes nationwide. More states will surely follow, and what they choose to include is now entirely up to them.
While Missouri’s law focuses narrowly on sexual content, the underlying legal category — “material harmful to minors” — can be, and historically has been, interpreted far more broadly. Legislatures in multiple states have previously attempted to restrict access to violent games, gambling-adjacent mechanics, and even online chat features. Those efforts failed in the past largely because they overreached.
But age-verification laws have a built-in political shield: they claim to protect children without banning the content outright. That’s a much easier sell.
If a future bill lumps violent content, loot boxes, or online play into the same “harmful” bucket, the next wave of laws could easily require verification not just for adult sites, but for any digital service that lawmakers (arbitrarily) deem inappropriate for minors. That could affect storefronts such as Steam, cloud-gaming platforms, and even social features in sports games.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t know of too many people who will complain about state/federal crackdowns on loot boxes. However, should their mere presence prevent someone under the age of 18 from accessing those games’ online functions? I don’t think so, and I’d be hard-pressed to find a rational person who would.
Gamers Could Face Real Friction
Even if gamers aren’t the intended target, history has shown that lawmakers can always find ways to expand a law’s reach. Look at the Patriot Act, for example. Originally, it was only supposed to provide the government with the tools to combat terrorism post-9/11. Then, it was being used for ordinary criminal investigations and mass data collection. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was originally meant to take down the Mafia before it was expanded to include white-collar crime, protests, political campaigns, college admissions fraud, corporate misconduct, and even sports doping cases.
Imagine how vague and broad a law about protecting children can become after enough years in the oven. Gamers have long resisted friction, whether it’s DRM, login walls, or platform-level restrictions. Age verification, if expanded, can become the next pain point.
The gaming sector tends to assume it’s exempt from legislation aimed at adult content, but lawmakers rarely distinguish between entertainment mediums when drafting broad online-safety bills. The adult-site laws aren’t about adult content anymore — they’re the first large-scale test of mandated digital identity checks.
If the political appetite grows, the gaming industry could find itself pulled into the same regulatory framework — not because games are “inappropriate,” but because the infrastructure for verifying every user’s age will already be in place.
Missouri’s law is not a gaming story today. But the next law could be. And by then, the debate may already be over.
