A lot of kids spend too much time on their phones (just like adults). Could the problem be kept in check with better parenting tools? Media Literacy? Earlier this year, Texas lawmakers decided that the solution was neither, but instead, a legal moat around the app ecosystem itself.
Texas Installs Age Gates on Apps
Last May, Texas passed the App Store Accountability Act (S.B. 2420), a statute that tries to turn every app store into a bouncer checking IDs at the door. On paper, the law is framed as a child‑protection measure for the age of smartphones. It targets any app store that distributes software to mobile devices, and any developer who makes their app available in Texas through those stores.
When a Texan creates an account, the store must categorize them into one of four age groups (child, younger teenager, older teenager, or adult) using a “commercially reasonable” age-verification method. If that user is under 18, they cannot just browse and download like everyone else. Their account must be tethered to a verified “parent account.” That parent must then individually approve every app download, every app purchase, and every in-app purchase. Blanket consent is explicitly banned.
There are carveouts, of course, but they’re so narrow that they really just serve to highlight how sweeping the rule really is. Emergency‑services apps run by or in partnership with government entities or nonprofits are exempt from the consent requirement. A teen can call a crisis hotline without a parent clicking “yes,” and standardized‑testing apps tied to college admissions get a free pass, too. Everyone else (from newspapers and library apps to Bible study tools, language-learning platforms, and games) is relegated behind the same parental-permission wall, even if the content is entirely benign.
The statute is not limited to apps containing pornographic content or to services that the state has specifically identified as harmful; it applies broadly to most mobile apps. It requires verified parental consent before minors may download apps, make purchases in apps, or continue using apps after certain changes
At the same time, developers must rate every app and every in‑app purchase using Texas’s four age categories. They must also spell out what content led to each rating and send that information to every app store that carries their product. The stores then have to show those ratings and explanations to users. Both developers and stores can be penalized if the State later decides that any of those ratings were “knowingly” wrong. But major app‑store operators (Apple, Google, and Amazon) already maintain their own age‑rating systems and offer parental‑control tools.
App Makers Push Back
Texas didn’t have to wait long to find out what the tech industry thought of its experiment. Within days of S.B. 2420 being signed, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) filed suit in federal court in Austin, asking a judge to stop the law before it ever took effect. CCIA is a trade group whose members include some of the biggest players in the mobile ecosystem (including, you guessed it, Apple, Google, and Amazon), along with large and small app developers whose products are sold through their stores.
The case, filed against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, argues that S.B. 2420 directly targets the way these companies host, curate, and distribute apps to users in Texas. Why Paxton? The statute labels violations as “deceptive trade practices” enforceable by his office under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. So, if app stores or developers do not comply, it’s AG that will bring the consequences.
CCIA argues that Texas’s new App Store Accountability Act unlawfully interferes with how app stores and app developers speak, design their products, and reach users. In its complaint, the group frames app stores as modern bookstores or newsstands that curate and distribute vast amounts of protected speech, from news and religious content to education and entertainment. The law’s requirements are, in CCIA’s view, heavy-handed conditions placed on access to lawful speech rather than narrowly tailored protections against clearly harmful material.
On that basis, CCIA brings a First Amendment challenge on several fronts. It claims the statute is content‑based and overbroad because it reaches almost all apps while carving out only a few favored categories. It also claims the law compels speech by forcing developers and stores to adopt and display Texas’s age‑rating framework, and that vague terms like “significant” changes leave companies guessing about what is required.
Beyond speech, CCIA argues that the Act imposes large, state‑specific compliance costs on nationwide services and thus places an excessive burden on interstate commerce–especially given that major platforms already provide their own parental controls and rating systems.
Texas Fights Back
Texas’s defenses come in two layers: procedural and substantive. Procedurally, Attorney General Ken Paxton argues that the federal court should not reach the merits at all. His answer asserts that the court lacks subject‑matter jurisdiction over some or all of CCIA’s claims and that CCIA has “failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” signaling an intent to challenge the sufficiency of the constitutional theories even if the factual allegations are assumed true. He also invokes immunity, including Eleventh Amendment and sovereign immunity, as a bar to at least some forms of relief, and reserves the right to raise additional defenses as the case develops.
Substantively, Paxton does not concede any of CCIA’s characterizations of S.B. 2420 as unconstitutional. While he admits the basic mechanical requirements of the statute—age categories, parental‑account affiliation for minors, parental consent obligations, and age‑rating duties—he denies that these provisions burden speech, are impermissibly vague, or violate the Commerce Clause. For many allegations about how app stores operate or how the law will function in practice, he states that he lacks sufficient knowledge or information and therefore denies them, preserving the State’s ability to contest CCIA’s factual predicates as well as its legal claims.
Judge Hits Pause on the Law
The judge sided, at least for now, with the challengers. Just before the law was set to take effect on January 1, the federal court hit pause, granting the CCIA a preliminary injunction and instructing Texas that it could not enforce S.B. 2420 while the case proceeds. In plain terms, that means app stores and developers do not have to build Texas’s new age‑gating and rating machinery right now, and users in the state are not subject to the law’s ID checks and parental‑approval clicks yet.
The court’s reason was simple but powerful: this is not just a consumer‑protection or product‑design rule, it is a rule about who can see what speech, and on what terms. The judge said the law targets protected expression, treats some kinds of apps more favorably than others, and forces companies to speak in the state’s voice through its age‑rating system. Because of that, Texas had to clear the highest constitutional bar and show that S.B. 2420 was tightly tailored to a truly compelling goal. The court found that Texas fell short and that several key provisions were too vague to enforce fairly. The upshot is that, unless a higher court says otherwise, Texas cannot use this law to remake the app ecosystem for minors.
Related Resources:
- Legislators Try to Ban Social Media for Kids (FindLaw’s Law and Daily Life)
- Inside Trump’s Executive Order on AI Regulation (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
- 10 Tips for Social Media Safety (FindLaw’s Learn About the Law)
