Not all age verification methods are equal. Regulators and platforms are converging on a short list of "highly effective" options, while others (like plain self-declaration) are explicitly not enough. Here’s a concise comparison.

Photo ID + liveness. The user uploads an ID and completes a liveness check (e.g. selfie or short video). The provider extracts age (and optionally matches face to ID) and returns a result. Strong and widely accepted. Privacy depends on implementation: avoid solutions that store the ID or face; prefer those that return only a signed outcome and an audit ID.

Facial age estimation. The user submits a selfie or short video; an AI model estimates whether they are above the threshold (e.g. 18+). No ID required. Fast and low-friction. Best when the image is processed in memory and not stored, and when the model is validated (e.g. by NIST or similar). Some regulators accept it as highly effective when combined with clear disclosure and fallback for edge cases.

Token / assertion-based. The user proves age once (via ID, wallet, or another method) and receives a signed token or credential (e.g. "18+ verified") that they or a connected service can present to platforms. No need to re-share documents. Aligns with eIDAS 2.0 and the EU blueprint. Ideal for returning users and cross-site reuse.

Open Banking. In some jurisdictions, age can be inferred or confirmed via bank-verified identity. Low friction for users who already use Open Banking. Availability and regulatory acceptance vary by country.

Choosing a method (or combination) depends on your risk level, user base, and jurisdiction. For many platforms, a hybrid approach works best: strong verification (ID + liveness) for first-time users, token or light reverification for returning users, and no storage of raw documents or faces.