A U.S. District Court judge in Austin halted a new Texas law that would have tightened control over app store access for minors. Judge Robert Pitman issued a preliminary injunction on Tuesday, preventing the law from taking effect on Jan. 1. The law, informally called the “App Store Accountability Act,” was signed into law by the Texas Legislature earlier this year.
What the Law Would Have Done
Senate Bill 2420, the legislative vehicle for the Act, passed the Texas House 120-9 and the Senate 30-1, a combined margin of 150-10. The bill’s author’s statement of intent said it was designed to address “growing concerns regarding the rise of social media and its pervasiveness in the lives of children.”
Under the Act, any Texan under 18 would be barred from creating an app-store account on a mobile device without linking that account to a registered parent or guardian account. If a child wanted to buy an app or make an in-app purchase, the parent would have to give explicit permission. The law expressly prohibited parents from granting blanket permissions or waiving the requirement.
The Act also mandated that all apps carry one of four age ratings:
- Content for children (12-years-old or younger)
- Content for younger teens (13-to-15-years-old)
- Content for older teens (16-to-17-years-old)
- Content for adults (over 18)
App developers would be responsible for assigning these ratings to their apps and any in-app purchases. Misrepresenting an age rating or the reason for the rating would be deemed a deceptive trade practice under Texas law.
Why the Law Was Blocked
The injunction followed lawsuits filed by the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT). Both groups argued that the law violated the First Amendment.
CCIA, representing companies that operate app stores-including Amazon, Apple, and Google, said the law was a “100-foot-high, 50-yard-wide roadblock to the entire internet on mobile devices.” Senior Vice President and Chief of Staff Stephanie Joyce explained that requiring a verified parent to approve every app download or purchase for a teen was “far too onerous” and “far too broad.”
SEAT sued on behalf of Texas teenagers who would have been prevented from accessing the app store without parental permission. Attorney Adam Sieff said, “Banning students like SEAT’s members… from accessing these massive libraries without parental consent, just because the government thinks that’s what their parents ought to want, has never been a constitutionally permissible way to protect kids or support families.” He added, “We’re glad the Court agreed with our student clients and blocked Texas’s latest attempt to censor them and regulate their households.”
Judge Pitman’s ruling focused on the law’s First Amendment implications. He noted that while a state has a compelling interest in protecting minors from child pornography or sexual abuse, the bill’s restrictions on a wide variety of apps that contain protected speech-such as the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal, Substack, or Sports Illustrated-were “exceedingly overbroad.” He wrote, “While SB2420 may have some compelling applications, the categories of speech it restricts are so exceedingly overbroad that Paxton likely cannot show a compelling state interest.”
Pitman also questioned the law’s effectiveness. He pointed out that content the legislature sought to restrict could still be accessed through pre-installed internet browsers, and that blocking entire app stores was not a targeted solution. He said the law was “so broad it violates the First Amendment.”
Concerns About Rating Guidance and Developer Liability
Beyond free-speech concerns, the judge criticized the Act’s vague rating guidelines. He wrote that the provision requiring developers to “provide notice and update their ratings upon any significant change to the terms of service or private policy” gave no clear metrics for what constitutes a significant change. “The Act holds app developers and app stores liable for knowingly misrepresenting an age rating but fails to provide meaningful guidance to developers and stores about what metrics should be used,” Pitman stated.
He added that developers and stores would likely follow existing nongovernmental standards, but those standards might not be sufficient to avoid violating the provision. “Following those standards may not be sufficient and could lead them to violate (the provision),” he warned.
What Happens Next
The State of Texas and Attorney General Ken Paxton announced they will file an appeal. Paxton’s office has not responded to requests for comment.
The injunction does not mean the Legislature has abandoned its efforts to regulate social media. In February, Judge Pitman sided with SEAT in a challenge to the Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment (SCOPE) Act, another Texas law aimed at protecting children from harmful online content. The SCOPE Act targeted content that promotes or glorifies suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, stalking, bullying, harassment, grooming, trafficking, child pornography, or other sexual exploitation.
The issue is not purely partisan. House Bill 1481, which banned cell-phone use in Texas public schools, passed the House 128-17 and the Senate unanimously. State Rep. Caroline Fairly, the House sponsor of the App Store Accountability Act, cited negative mental-health outcomes as a reason for HB 1481. One of the bill’s co-sponsors, State Rep. Mary González, D-El Paso, said she will continue to fight for social-media protections. She noted, “Nearly four out of every ten teenagers in the U.S. report being online constantly according to the Pew Research Center.” She added that her office remains committed to safeguarding measures for all Texans.
Key Takeaways
- Judge Pitman blocked the App Store Accountability Act from taking effect on Jan. 1, citing First Amendment concerns.
- The law would have required minors to link app-store accounts to a parent or guardian and limited parental permission to explicit purchases.
- CCIA and SEAT argued the law was overly broad and unconstitutional; the judge agreed and allowed an appeal.
The injunction marks a significant victory for digital-rights advocates, but the Texas Legislature remains poised to pursue alternative regulatory strategies. The outcome of the upcoming appeal will shape how app stores and developers operate in Texas for the foreseeable future.
Closing
The preliminary injunction demonstrates the judiciary’s willingness to scrutinize legislation that may infringe on constitutional rights. As Texas prepares to appeal, the debate over how best to protect minors in the digital age will continue to unfold.
