FOLLOW US

A student advocacy group and two Texas high school students have joined forces with some of the nation’s largest tech companies to challenge a new Texas law that would require mobile app store operators to verify users’ ages and block minors from downloading or purchasing apps without parental consent. The lawsuits, filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, claim the measure violates the First Amendment and imposes unconstitutional restrictions on access to speech and information.

Dual Lawsuits Challenge Texas App Store Accountability Act

The student plaintiffs, represented by Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT), filed one lawsuit the same day that the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) — whose members include Google, Apple, Meta Platforms Inc., and Amazon — filed a parallel challenge. Both suits target S.B. 2420, the Texas App Store Accountability Act, which is slated to take effect January 1, 2026.

Under the law, app store operators must:

• Verify every user’s age before allowing downloads or purchases;

• Categorize users into age brackets: under 13, 13–15, 16–17, and 18 and over; and

• Require parental consent for any downloads or in-app purchases made by users under 18.

Plaintiffs argue the statute’s scope is sweeping — covering not just social media platforms but also educational, creative, and informational tools such as Wikipedia, Kindle, Audible, messaging apps, browsers, and news applications.

Students: Law “Replaces Parents’ Freedom” With State Control

In their complaint, the students said the law unlawfully imposes “content-based prior restraints on speech”, effectively substituting the state’s judgment for that of parents.

“Just as the government could not compel a bookstore to screen patrons and stop minors from purchasing any book without parental approval,” the plaintiffs wrote, “the state cannot ban minors from downloading digital content through app stores or within apps without parental consent.”

The students emphasized that the law undermines parental authority by forcing parents to approve every digital interaction their children have, even in families where parents value their children’s privacy and autonomy. One plaintiff’s mother, quoted in the filing, said the law would “effectively override her parental decision-making.”

They further contend that mandatory age verification through government-issued IDs or similar methods will compel Texans to surrender sensitive personal information, heightening the risk of data breaches and privacy violations.

Tech Industry Echoes Constitutional Concerns

In its own lawsuit, the CCIA echoed many of the same constitutional objections, arguing the law “burdens the speech rights” of app stores, developers, and users alike.

“The act is both fatally overbroad and underinclusive to achieve its limited ends,” CCIA wrote. “It is also unnecessary: App stores and app developers already provide parents with tools to help them control what their children can access on their mobile devices.”

The association contends the law’s “one-size-fits-all, paternalistic restriction” strips parents of meaningful choice while imposing broad censorship on millions of apps spanning entertainment, education, and news.

Attorneys’ Statements and Representation

Ambika Kumar, a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP representing the students, said the First Amendment does not allow the government to require parental permission for minors to access most information online.

“The Constitution forbids restricting adults’ access to speech in the name of protecting children,” Kumar said. “This law imposes a system of prior restraint on protected expression that is presumptively unconstitutional.”

The Texas Attorney General’s Office, led by Ken Paxton, did not respond to requests for comment.

Case Information and Counsel

• Students Engaged in Advancing Texas et al. v. Ken Paxton, Case No. 1:25-cv-01662

  • Plaintiffs represented by: Ambika Kumar, Erwin Reschke, David M. Gossett, Celyra Myers, Adam S. Sieff, Haley B. Zoffer, and Abigail B. Everdell of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

• Computer & Communications Industry Association v. Ken Paxton, Case No. 1:25-cv-01660

  • CCIA represented by: Brian Willen, Lauren Gallo White, and Deno Himonas of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, and Laura Lee Prather, Catherine L. Robb, Michael J. Lambert, and Reid Pillifant of Haynes Boone LLP

Both cases are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.