Supreme Court Allows Texas to Enforce App Age Verification Law

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's decision allowing Texas to enforce its app age verification law could set a precedent for similar legislation in other states, potentially impacting the app development and technology sectors in Massachusetts.

---

**WASHINGTON** — The Supreme Court on Monday allowed Texas to proceed with the enforcement of a state law mandating age verification and parental consent for minors to download applications and make in-app purchases. In two unauthored orders, the justices rejected requests to reinstate injunctions issued by a federal judge in Austin. These injunctions had previously prevented the state from implementing the law. No public dissenting opinions accompanied the orders. The legislation at the center of the dispute, known as the Texas App Store Accountability Act (SB 2420), faces challenges from two separate groups. Students Engaged in Advancing Texas, which states its members "use mobile apps to teach other kids how to get involved in policymaking," initiated a federal lawsuit last October. The group aimed to block the law before its scheduled effective date of January 1, 2026. Simultaneously, the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), a trade organization representing app stores and developers, filed a similar legal challenge. Both groups contend that SB 2420 infringes upon First Amendment rights. U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman issued an order in December, temporarily halting the enforcement of SB 2420. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit subsequently stayed Pitman's orders last month. This action prompted the challengers to bring their case to the Supreme Court. In legal documents submitted to the Supreme Court, the student group argued that the 5th Circuit's ruling "would render virtually the entire internet—not to mention the distribution of every book, newspaper, magazine, movie, or record album—‘commercial speech’ the government could more readily ban, restrict, edit, or compel." They also noted that Texas already has a law, previously upheld by the Supreme Court, that shields children from adult online content. The students maintained that SB 2420's stated goal of protecting them "from ‘accessing harmful or inappropriate content’ … is not a valid government interest." The CCIA, in its own filing, asserted that the 5th Circuit's decision "has upset the status quo by allowing the Act to be enforced for the first time, exposing app stores and millions of app developers to potential liability." The organization projected "enormous and unrecoverable compliance costs" for its members. The CCIA also highlighted that its member app stores already provide "various, voluntary tools that enable parents to control their children’s exposure to apps and content." Texas responded by characterizing SB 2420 as a regulation of commercial transactions rather than speech. The state argued the law addresses the conditions under which young individuals can agree to contractual terms required for app downloads. "In the same way that the State can deny drivers’ licenses to children under sixteen," Texas contended, "even though some fourteen-year-olds may wish to drive to a bookstore and purchase a book, the State can restrict children’s downloads of software applications to mobile devices as a product category, even if some children may wish to use applications to engage in expressive conduct." Furthermore, the state argued that because SB 2420 applies to all apps "regardless of their content," the district court applied an incorrect constitutional test by determining the law violated the First Amendment. Texas suggested that a less stringent test, such as intermediate scrutiny, would be more appropriate and that the law could pass such a test. The state cited the appeals court's view that "‘Requiring age verification, parental consent, and app-related content ratings likely directly and materially advances Texas’s substantial interest in protecting children’s data, safety, and privacy in a digital world.’" Finally, Texas claimed that Pitman’s orders constituted a "universal injunction," a type of order the Supreme Court addressed in its 2024 decision in *Trump v. CASA*. The state stated that Pitman’s orders prohibited the enforcement of SB 2420 "against anyone, not just the Plaintiffs."