US lawmakers say Texas App Store Accountability Act should be allowed to stand

While most of the world calmly comes to terms with new regulations on social media, app stores and online platforms, the U.S. is engaged in a tug-of-war between lawmakers and lawyers for Big Tech who have leaned hard on the First Amendment in their attempts to quash online safety legislation.

Senate Bill 2420 (SB 2420) is Texas’ law imposing age assurance requirements on app stores. Like most age assurance laws across the U.S., the App Store Accountability Act faces a legal challenge from industry: in this case, an injunction sought by the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which represents major app store operators and app developers. Initially granted, the injunction was stayed earlier this month when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with Attorney General Ken Paxton, pausing the injunction until further legal notice.

Apple has complied with the law as its legal engine continues to try and crush it. Now, attorneys general from 27 states have filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court of the United States to leave the law in place.

Their arguments address the questions of parental rights, free expression and corporate intent. The law, they say, “furthers the important interest of parents’ rights,” to which Texas has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment. And it “regulates commercial transactions, not expression” – a key differentiator from platform-level measures on social media. “SB2420 clearly doesn’t directly regulate expression. It requires app stores and app developers to comply with several regulations before they can attempt to contract with minors. That is not itself speech – it is a commercial transaction.”

Finally, “SB2420 is necessary given the deficiencies in voluntary safeguards for apps.” As to objections that app stores already have effective safeguards in place, the attorneys general say they “blink reality.”

“The lack of current controls is especially well-documented in the social media context,” they write. “Platforms have long had parental controls, but they have made no dent in child addiction.”

Argument against identity verification misses target

Commentary published in Texas Policy Research suggests that, “for supporters of SB 2420, the issue is straightforward. They argue that states have long regulated commercial transactions involving minors and that app stores should not receive special exemptions from rules designed to protect children.”

The piece likewise notes that proponents of the law are “increasingly framing the issue as one of parental rights, consumer protection, and state authority over commercial transactions involving minors.” This pivots away from free speech – and could have broader legal implications for social media and other platforms facing age assurance requirements.

But it errs in its argument about digital permission structures. “Supporters characterize the law as a consumer protection measure focused on children,” it says. “In practice, however, enforcing the law requires app stores and developers to determine who is a child, who is an adult, who is a parent, and whether parental consent has been granted. That process necessarily requires some form of identity verification.”

This is simply not true. As structured, the law requires app stores to verify a user’s age using “commercially reasonable methods.” There exists a diverse market for privacy preserving age assurance methods – facial age estimation, for instance, or double-blind tokenization – which do not perform identity verification at all. That said, the concern appears to be more infrastructural: not limited to any specific technology, but instead focused on “the broader principle that free citizens should not be required to surrender anonymity or obtain permission before engaging in lawful activity.”

“While SB 2420 does not establish a government-operated digital identification system, it creates regulatory incentives for increasingly sophisticated identity verification mechanisms. Whether those systems rely on government-issued identification, third-party verification services, biometric tools, financial records, or other forms of credentialing, the practical effect is similar. Access to lawful digital products and services becomes increasingly dependent upon proving identity.”

“Today, the requirement applies to app stores. Tomorrow, lawmakers could make similar arguments regarding social media platforms, online marketplaces, artificial intelligence tools, streaming services, search engines, gaming platforms, or other digital services used by minors.”

The article raises privacy concerns, and pokes a little at free speech as a problem that SB 2420 does not, ostensibly, solve. The gist of it is that “Texas Policy Research maintains concerns about SB 2420.”

“What begins as a narrowly tailored child safety measure can eventually become a broader framework governing access to lawful information, services, and speech,” it says.

NetChoice says age assurance is to control speech, advocates for more police

For now, social media firms continue to hammer the bell of free speech through their legal lobby, NetChoice. Its latest target is Puerto Rico’s proposed “Law for the Digital Safety and Well-being of Minors,” PC 1136, which would establish a minimum age of 16 for access to and use of social media platforms in Puerto Rico, “provide the supervisory and sanctioning powers of the Telecommunications Bureau” and “establish age verification requirements for providers.”

NetChoice presents itself as “a trade association working to make the internet safe for free enterprise and free expression,” falling to mention that its members include Meta, TikTok and Snap. It alleges that PC 1136 “suffers from significant constitutional flaws” – namely, that “PC 1136 is unconditional under the First Amendment,” that “it would put Puerto Rican’s privacy and data at risk, leaving them vulnerable to breaches and crime,” and that “the bill violates parental rights.”

The letter is mostly familiar fare from NetChoice; however, it is notable for mistakenly asserting that Puerto Rico’s law aims to establish a minimum age of 14, not 16; and for the unintentionally hilarious statement, “other nations, including Iran and Australia, have also taken steps to curtail online speech.” PC 1136 mentions Australia as a model for its legislation: “similar to the Australian model, Puerto Rico seeks to shift technological responsibility to the multi-billion dollar companies that operate these platforms, requiring them to implement robust and secure age verification systems.”

NetChoice, however, is not much for subtlety, or irony. In another tirade, the organization suggests that the UK’s wildly popular social media legislation was responsible for the downfall of soon-to-be-ex-Prime Minister Keir Starmer, says the goal of age verification is to control online speech, and suggests as an alternative its Digital Safety Shield policy framework, which begins with recommendations to increase funding to law enforcement and incarcerate more “predators and cybercriminals who target children on digital services.”

Article Topics

age verification  |  app store age verification  |  legislation  |  Netchoice  |  Puerto Rico  |  social media  |  Texas  |  Texas age verification