Having equal access to businesses and public spaces is an important part of personal freedom as a young individual. This includes the ability to enter certain stores, shopping centers, attend concerns, and more. However, in the United States, young people are often rejected from entering certain businesses solely due to their age. These restrictions are oftentimes put in place for no particular reason other than the fact that business does not trust that specific age group to not cause trouble for them.
NYRA advocates for youth access rights in public spaces regardless of their age by promoting fair rules while also recognizing that young people are capable of responsibly participating in society.
Table of Contents
- Federal Laws on Age-Based Business Discrimination
- State Laws on Age-Based Business Discrimination
- Statistics on Youth Bans in Businesses
- Age Restrictions on Concerts and Conventions
- Youth-Targeted Defense Measures
- Online Business Restrictions
- Court Cases on Age Discrimination
- Conclusion
Federal Laws on Age-Based Business Discrimination
There is no single federal law that prohibits age discrimination against young people in public spaces. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in public spaces based on race, color, religion, and national origin. However, age is not included as protected.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 protects individuals who are 40 years of age and older and discrimination in employment. It does not protect young people, and it also does not apply to customers interested in entering an established business.
Because of this legal gap, businesses are unfortunately fully able to prevent individuals of a certain age from entering unless state laws provide additional protection.
State Laws on Age-Based Business Discrimination
State laws play a significant role in determining if age discrimination in businesses is allowed. Some states include age as protected in their public accommodation statutes. However, many of these laws have exceptions that allow businesses to place restrictions on youth.
Below are states that include age in their public accommodation statutes:
- Alaska – Alaska Stat. § 18.80.230
- California – California Civil Code § 51 (Unruh Civil Rights Act)
- Colorado – C.R.S. § 24-34-601
- Connecticut – Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-64
- Delaware – Del. Code Title 6 § 4504
- Illinois – 775 ILCS 5/5-102 (Illinois Human Rights Act)
- Maine – Me. Rev. Stat. Title 5 § 4591
- Maryland – Md. Code, State Gov’t § 20-304
- Massachusetts – Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 272 § 98
- Minnesota – Minn. Stat. § 363A.11
- Nevada – Nev. Rev. Stat. § 651.070
- New Hampshire – N.H. Rev. Stat. § 354-A:17
- New Jersey – N.J. Stat. § 10:5-12
- New Mexico – N.M. Stat. § 28-1-7
- Oregon – ORS 659A.403
- Rhode Island – R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-24-2
- Vermont – 9 V.S.A. § 4502
- Washington – RCW 49.60.215
Read more about State Public Accommodation Laws
Even in these states, the law often allows businesses to place restrictions on youth depending on the situation.
Statistics on Youth Bans in Businesses
Businesses are often responsible for discrimination against young people. For example, store bans are common. Across America, over 1,000 malls and shopping centers have banned young people in some capacity, often banning young people from being present without a legal adult on weekends. Bans on young people aren’t confined to malls either. A 7Eleven location in Washington D.C. only allowed two youths in the store at a time.
While large chains do not often have bans on young people, many individual stores, either part of a large chain of a local small business, often implement such bans; usually justified because one teen shoplifted, or by saying that young people are a nuisance to other customers. However, according to the National Association for Shoplifting Prevention (NASP), “Approximately 25 percent of shoplifters are kids, 75 percent are adults.” This shows that even though most shoplifting offenses are committed by adults, teenagers as a whole are the only ones facing these unfair restrictions.
Large malls such as the Mall of America have enforced parental escort policies at properties across the country. Under these policies, minors may be required to show identification, remain with a parent over 21 years of age, or leave at a specific curfew time. These rules apply to all teens, regardless of if they have engaged in any misconduct.
Age Restrictions on Concerts and Conventions
Age-based restrictions are also common in entertainment venues. Many concerns, conventions, and live events are labeled 18+ or 21+ only, especially when alcohol is served at the venue. Ticketing platforms such as Ticketmaster are known to place age restrictions for events across the country. Industry attendance data shows that about 65% of concert ticket buyers are between ages 18 and 34 years of age (Human and Health Services ND). This percentage includes a large number of individuals who are under 21 years of age but are still oftentimes blocked from entering a majority of these events.
In most states, alcohol laws do not allow individuals under 21 years of age to be served alcohol. However, these laws do not require banning minors from entering the venue itself. Instead of checking identification at the bar or using wristbands, venues often decide to just place age restrictions to easily enforce these rules.
There have been multiple instances of concerts and concessions restricting entry to those 21 years of age and older solely because alcohol is available at the event. Since the drinking age is 21+ all across the United States, many venues choose to enforce a 21+ policy instead of checking the identification of each individual. For example, in many smaller venues that serve alcohol, concerts are placed at 21+ entry only. This is because owners often do not want to separate alcohol areas from the audience, so they instead block all fans under 21 years of age from attending (The Daily Wildcat).
In these situations, young people are excluded from events they should be legally able to attend.
Youth-Targeted Defense Measures
Some businesses use youth-targeted defense measures designed specifically to block teenagers from gathering near their property. One widely known example is called the “Mosquito” anti-loitering device developed by Compound Security Systems.
This device produces high-frequency sounds that are often seen as annoying to chase away teenagers from public areas. The purpose of this device is not to prevent any illegal behavior; instead, it is used to discourage all young people from being in that specific area altogether.
The website lists that the mosquitos have a specific, “Teen Setting”, which “produces a high-frequency tone that can only be heard by people under 25. It is successful at getting rid of teenagers whose presence is threatening and anti-social.”
Businesses using devices like this is blatantly discriminatory and outright cruel to specifically target young people. Young people deserve to have free access to businesses just like everyone else does, without the fear of targeted defense measures meant to drive them away from places.
These devices have been placed outside many stores and shopping centers in numerous states across the U.S.
Online Business Restrictions
The internet isn’t a frontier safe from barriers either. Many websites and online services ban people from using their service if they are under a certain age, usually 16 or 18. ActBlue, an online service that handles donations to several politicians, doesn’t allow people under 18 to donate through their service. Even the OpenWeatherMap API requires you to be 16 to use. Why does one need to be 16 to access weather data?
Many of these restrictions are justified by referencing the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. However, federal law oftentimes only applies to children under 13 years of age, and businesses have been seen extending these age limits far past this requirement.
Court Cases on Age Discrimination
| Case | What the Court Decided |
| EEOC v. Wendy’s (2025) – The EEOC sued a Wendy’s in Columbus, Ohio for allegedly firing and mistreating employees due to their age or disability. | The court allowed the case to move forward. Wendy’s was accused of breaking the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). |
| Tan v. Homewood Suites Nashua (2019) – An individual 20 years of age sued a hotel for refusing him a room because he was under 21 years of age. | The court allowed the case to move forward under New Hampshire state law (N.H. Rev. Stat. § 354-A:17). |
| Candelore v. Tinder, Inc. (2018) – A lawsuit over Tinder charging younger users more than older users. | The court allowed the case to move forward under California law (California Civil Code § 51). Treating customers differently due to age breaks the Unruh Civil Rights Act. |
Conclusion
This is symptomatic of a greater prejudice against young people founded upon baseless claims that young people are incompetent and irresponsible. If businesses used such policies against any other group, there would be public outrage, and rightfully so. So, why is it acceptable to do this against young people?
Business discrimination against youth only continues to grow across malls, stores, entertainment venues, and online platforms. Through advocating for fair and clear legal protections on individual behavior alone instead of restricting all youth, NYRA hopes to give young people more freedom and equal access across public spaces.
The National Youth Rights Association
If you’re interested in Youth Rights, consider volunteering with us. We are always looking for new members and would love to have you on board. If you have a personal story to share about business discrimination, or a general youth rights violation, consider sending us an email at nyra@youthrights.org, and we’d love to help get your story out to the world.
