If it must be ignored, then it exists. The bill proposes age verification. You may think the measures employed are weak or trivial, and I would agree, but the bill proposes age verification.
You seem to be operating with an unreasonably weak definition of "verification". What this bill is requiring is that app stores or operating systems ask for age information. Verification would mean doing something to verify the accuracy of the information provided, not merely receiving a response to the question. "Age verification" is not a synonym for "having age-based restrictions".
> and gates further interactions based on the answer
No. The OS does literally nothing with the age information other than water it down to a few pre-defined age brackets and pass that on to applications. There's nothing in this law that says any action has to be denied. It's information collection and reporting, with no verification, accepting the information reported by the user as-is. The law does not require the information to be true or accurate, and explicitly removes liability from app developers when their users lie about their age.
Even applications don't need to do anything with the age information, unless there's a different law already on the books saying something needs to be age-restricted. And in those cases, getting the information about whether to apply restrictions from the OS instead of however they're currently getting age information is not "verification".
"Verification" necessarily implies at least two pieces of information or steps in the process: first, an assertion of something as fact, then something to confirm that fact. This law omits the second step. There's no confirmation.