From the bill section 1798.501(b):

> (2)(A) A developer that receives a signal pursuant to this title shall be deemed to have actual knowledge of the age range of the user to whom that signal pertains across all platforms of the application and points of access of the application even if the developer willfully disregards the signal.

> (B) A developer shall not willfully disregard internal clear and convincing information otherwise available to the developer that indicates that a user’s age is different than the age bracket data indicated by a signal provided by an operating system provider or a covered application store.

> (3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a developer shall treat a signal received pursuant to this title as the primary indicator of a user’s age range for purposes of determining the user’s age.

> (B) If a developer has internal clear and convincing information that a user’s age is different than the age indicated by a signal received pursuant to this title, the developer shall use that information as the primary indicator of the user’s age.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

▲

nl 13 hours ago | parent [-]

I think you are agreeing with my interpretation, right?

	▲	tzs 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Nope. The bill says that a developer that receives the age signal is deemed to have actual knowledge of the user's age range. As long as they don't willfully disregard clear and convincing contradictory information from somewhere else the signal is good enough.