• by Wendy Davis , June 9, 2026

The tech group Computer & Communications Industry Association and advocacy organization Students Engaged in Advancing Texas say they expect to ask the Supreme Court to block a state law requiring app marketplaces like Google and Apple to verify users' ages and prevent minors under 18 from downloading apps or making in-app purchases, without parental consent.

The organizations disclosed their plans in a filing this week with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which recently allowed the App Store Accountability Act (SB 2420) to go into effect.

In addition to prohibiting minors from downloading apps without parental consent, the law also requires developers to say whether their apps are appropriate for children under 13, young teens (ages 13 -15), older teens (ages 16-17) or adults 18 and older. The statute also requires app developers to say whether particular in-app purchases are appropriate for children, young teens, older teens or adults. 

The Texas law, passed last year, was originally slated to take effect in January. Utah and Louisiana passed similar statutes last year, and federal lawmakers have introduced a nationwide version.

The 5th Circuit judges said in a written ruling issued Thursday that the Texas law "likely directly and materially advances Texas’s substantial interest in protecting children’s data, safety, and privacy in a digital world."

The judges added that there is "likely a 'reasonable fit' between SB2420’s methods and goals allowing parents to direct and supervise children’s downloads of apps and in-app purchases."

The ruling lifted a block on enforcement that was issued last year by U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pitman in Austin, who said the law likely violates the First Amendment.

"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," Pitman wrote at the time.

He issued the injunction at the request of the Computer & Communications Industry Association and Students Engaged in Advancing Texas, which claimed in separate lawsuits filed last year that the law is unconstitutional.

The New York Times and Associated Press and other news organizations backed the request for an injunction, writing in a friend-of-the-court brief that the law "renders wide swaths of speech at the very heart of the First Amendment’s protection presumptively off limits to minors when accessed through apps."

The National Retail Federation and Texas Retailers Association also opposed the law, arguing in a separate friend-of-the-court brief that the statute could hinder companies' ability to sell books, movies, clothing and other goods through apps.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton defended the measure, arguing to Pitman that minors don't have the same civil rights as adults -- such as the right to vote or, in Texas, to purchase guns without parental consent.

Paxton added that the government can regulate products that could harm minors' health.

After Pitman blocked enforcement, Paxton appealed to the 5th Circuit and asked that court to lift the block while the appeal proceeds.

Paxton argued to the appellate court that the law merely regulates "commercial" transactions between minors and app stores.

"When minors download apps they are accepting terms of service, including agreements about how their data is used," Paxton argued. "The child may even be agreeing to have the information in their phone monetized by the tech companies or used to track location."

The Computer & Communications Industry Association and student group countered that the law "restricts an enormous amount of online speech."

They also urged the appellate court to reject what they described as Texas's attempt "to reframe SB2420 as directed only at contracts and data privacy."

"While app store user agreements may ... authorize data collection and set terms for user privacy, the Act does not regulate those aspects of the agreements," the groups wrote. "It instead uses age-verification at the account-creation stage to create a parental-consent obligation that specifically (and exclusively) covers obtaining apps and in-app content."

The appellate judges who lifted the injunction agreed with Paxton that the law "at most" regulates proposed commercial transactions.

"App store transactions are commercial in nature," two 5th Circuit judges (Reagan appointee Jerry Smith and Trump appointee Andrew Oldham)said in an opinion signed by neither of them; a third judge (George W. Bush appointee Catharina Haynes) agreed with the decision to lift the injunction but didn't join in the written opinion.

"After all, users browsing an app store can see a catalog of applications, obtain additional information, and download or purchase an application," Smith and Oldham wrote.

"App listings propose commercial transactions, regardless of whether any monetary payment is made," the judges added. "In fact, the 'payment' for apps that are purportedly 'free' is access to user data and private information."

Internet law expert Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, sharply criticized the ruling for several reasons. Among others, he noted that many free apps don't collect private information.

"In those cases, there is no data 'payment' at all," he said in a blog post. "The opinion just made this fact up, using a factually unsupportable stereotype."