How can the account holder violate the title when the title is not demanding anything of them? the whole document is about what the developer and OS distributor "shall" do.. there's no responsibility attached to the account holder. There's no "shall" attached to the parent. At most all it says is that the OS provider shall offer an interface that requires the Account holder to enter their age... which again is a mandate directly addressing what the OS provider shall be responsible of doing, not the parent. I think it's pretty clear that the document is targeting the OS providers & devs.

In fact, it even says that the developer should correct the age themselves, as if the account holder signaling the wrong age was already an expected situation, business as usual:

(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.

But sure, that's only for the AG to interpret... until it happens, it seems to me that it would be silly to assume that parents are gonna start to get fined, all these years the pressure has always been put into the service providers, with the parents often being given relative freedom to decide what to do (and that mentality is specially big in the US, where many states allow you to even home school your child, California amongst them...). Targeting something as "local" as an OS level question seems to me like a bad choice if they actually wanted to suddenly start putting pressure on the parents about age restrictions with this new law.