Texas App Store Accountability Act, SB 2420, was set to go into effect on January 1, 2026, was enjoined by the US District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin division Texas court on grounds of violations of the First Amendment, and vagueness.
[The law] restricts access to a vast universe of speech by requiring Texans to prove their age before downloading a mobile app or accessing paid content within those apps and requires minors to obtain parental consent. The Act is akin to a law that would require every bookstore to verify the age of every customer at the door and, for minors, require parental consent before the child or teen could enter and again when they try to purchase a book.
In the case, filed by the Computer & Communications Industry Association against Ken Paxon, as Attorney General of the State of Texas (1:25-CV-1660-RP), the court recognized the utmost importance of protecting kids from dangers online and their sometimes catastrophic ramifications, such as suicides following chatbot interactions, sexual exploitation on ‘child-safe’ platforms, algorithmic spirals into self-harm content, and gaming environments designed to mimic addictive gambling for minors.
Considering the various attributes of the law, the Court but concluded:
“However compelling the policy concerns, and however widespread the agreement that the issue must be addressed, the Court remains bound by the rule of law.” – and in the US, that means freedom of speech as protected by the first amendment.
The Court cites a 2011 case in which SCOTUS held that the State of California cannot “create new categories of unprotected speech” simply by labeling content as harmful.
“No doubt a State possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm, but that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed (Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. 786, 794 (2011))
The Texas App Store law requires app developers to assign an age rating to every app and every feature available for in-app purchase based on four age categories and to provide it to the app stores. The app stores are required to use that age category, to deny entry to anyone under 18 until confirming affiliation with a parent account and to procure parental consent for any purchase done by a minor on the app.
The Law Defines Regulated Speech by Subject Matter and is subject to the Strict Scrutiny Test
Per the Court, the App Store law is subject to constitutional strict scrutiny because it “defin[es] regulated speech by particular subject matter” and “singles out specific subject matter for differential treatment. This is because it excludes from its scope apps including standardized tests or post-secondary education. Another reason the Court cited is that, per its stated purpose, the law specifically sought to shield minors from certain speech the State deems objectionable or harmful which is a content-based justification.
The Law Fails the Strict Scrutiny Test
To withstand strict scrutiny, you need to show that SB 2420 is “the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling state interest”
The court held that this standard is not met. Because it restricts almost all apps and content within apps, SB 2420 does not employ “the least restrictive means” to stop minors from accessing harmful material.
Some means that could be used to this end, but were not included in the law, include:
- incentivizing companies to offer voluntary content filters or application blockers,
- educating children and parents on the importance of using such tools.
- narrowly target regulations toward apps that the State demonstrates have specific addictive qualities.
The Law is Under- and Over-Inclusive
Per the court, the law is under-inclusive: SB 2420 specifically cuts teenagers off from wide swaths of the critical “democratic forum[] of the Internet” even though the same content offered via apps remains available to minors via pre-downloaded apps like Safari (or in stores). It is also over-inclusive: its attempt to block children from accessing harmful content on select apps, Texas also prohibits minors from participating in the democratic exchange of views online by curtailing their access to all apps.
The Law is Impermissively Vague
“A regulation is void for vagueness when it is so unclear that people ‘of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.’” Id. (quoting Connally v. Gen. Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926))
“[If] the law interferes with the right of free speech or of association, a more stringent vagueness test should apply.” Vill. of Hoffman Ests. v. Flipside, Hoffman Ests., Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 499 (1982) .
Per the Court: SB 2420 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 to determine the age rating of an app. SB 2420 is silent about what content is appropriate or inappropriate for each age category.
In addition: SB 2420 fails to define material changes and does not explain what constitutes a new opportunity to make a purchase
The Court holds that the provision also likely incentivizes over-censorship, as app stores may broadly revoke access to avoid liability and steer wide of the unlawful zone, which further threatens to restrain speech.
The Court also holds that only in the vast minority of applications would SB 2420 have a constitutional application to unprotected speech not addressed by other laws. Because SB 2420 is unconstitutional in the vast majority of its applications, it is properly facially enjoined.
The case pauses the implementation of this law, giving app stores and app developers temporary relief from the need to implement the age gating requirements it imposed. Importantly, it highlights the strong position given in the United States to the First Amendment protection given to free speech. When regulation is content based, regulators must be able to demonstrate that the limitations imposed in the law are narrowly and strictly tailored to achieve the compelling interests the legislation is meant to protect and that they achieve this purpose.