Reaction Mixed as Court Blocks Texas App Store Accountability Act

The ruling was “not a surprise” for Troutman lawyer David Stauss, who said in an interview that “it seemed like this was a predictive outcome” based on what had been filed in the case so far. “Essentially, the ruling ends up" saying, regardless if you apply strict or intermediate scrutiny, “it's going to fail.”

But Tyler Bridegan, former director of privacy and tech enforcement for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), said the ruling was “somewhat of a surprise.” The Womble Bond lawyer was expecting the judge to enjoin “only specific provisions as [of the law, as] he did with the Texas Securing Children Online Through Parental Empowerment (SCOPE) Act," he told Privacy Daily in an email (see 2504290043).

In his ruling, Judge Robert Pitman said, “It is far from clear that Texas has a compelling interest in preventing minors’ access to every single category of speech restricted by SB 2420.” Since the law isn't "narrowly tailored,” it “fails strict scrutiny.”

Given that the law’s requirements “exclusively target speech,” it means that “SB 2420 is unconstitutional in the vast majority of its applications” due to the First Amendment, the judge added.

Additionally, some provisions are “impermissibly vague,” as they hold developers and app stores “liable for knowingly misrepresenting an age rating” without providing “meaningful guidance” as to determining app age ratings, according to Pitman.

Stauss said “the basic argument” is the law is “too broad.” It applies to all apps, meaning it “applies to the New York Times as much as it applies to something that would actually potentially have harm to children,” such as porn apps.

“But at the same time, it's too narrow, in the sense that it only applies to apps” available in app stores, and not apps that come preloaded on a phone or even to desktop websites, the Troutman lawyer said. In the same example as above, a 17-year-old “would need a parent to get access to [The] New York Times app,” but could circumvent this by using the desktop site instead.

Stauss said the “larger issue” is that Utah and Louisiana have very similar laws, though their effective dates aren’t as imminent as Texas’ was. The ruling “obviously has an impact on those laws as well,” despite the district court lacking direct jurisdiction.

Compliance with Utah’s app store accountability act begins May 6, 2026, though enforcement will not begin until Dec. 31. In Louisiana, the effective date is July 1, 2026 (see 2507100046).

Bridegan agreed. "With Utah, Louisiana, and California's law on deck to take effect, we'll see if other courts agree” with Pitman. He recommended paying “particularly close attention" to Louisiana, since "a failed constitutional challenge there could create a split among district judges within the Fifth Circuit.”

Stauss cautioned, however, that California’s law is different than the other three states, and so the Texas ruling may not impact it as much. California's AB-1043 applies to device manufacturers, requiring them to develop a mechanism to input a user’s birthday or age so that a digital signal can be sent indicating their age bracket (see 2509080005).

Today’s ruling “once again shows how difficult it is to pass constitutional laws" in the child privacy space, Stauss said. “Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have been trying for several years now to pass laws that regulate things” like social media and apps, or “require parental consent in general for establishing accounts,” but “they've never been able to get it right.”

Despite this, Bridegan predicted that Texas AG Paxton will “absolutely” appeal the injunction, particularly given recent success at the U.S. Supreme Court in "similar age-gating requirements,” referencing the decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (see 2506270041).

Pitman, however, pointed out differences between the two cases in his ruling. Given the decision in Free Speech Coalition that allowed HB-1181 to take effect, “Texas already restricts harmful online content for minors.” The age verification law requires “commercial entities publishing online content to monitor whether one-third or more of their content is sexual material harmful to minors” and “age-verify users” if so.

Since this law is in place, “only in the vast minority of applications would SB 2420 have a constitutional application to unprotected speech not addressed by other laws,” rendering it unconstitutional in most applications, the judge said.

As expected, CCIA celebrated Pitman’s decision. “This Order stops the Texas App Store Accountability Act from taking effect in order to preserve the First Amendment rights of app stores, app developers, parents, and younger internet users,” said Stephanie Joyce, director of CCIA’s litigation center. “It also protects parents’ inviolate right to use their own judgment in safeguarding their children online using the myriad tools our members provide.”

The trade association sued the state in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in October (see 2510160034), which started case 1:25-cv-01660. Paxton has defended the law as constitutional (see 2511200039).

Amicus briefs emphasized the onerous compliance burdens it poses, while others said the law would combat failures by app stores to protect kids from harmful content (see 2512150023).

Pitman heard oral argument for the preliminary injunction request Dec. 16 (see 2511240040).