The Supreme Court on Monday let Texas enforce a law requiring app stores to verify users’ ages and obtain parental consent before minors download apps, handing the tech industry a defeat while a First Amendment challenge plays out. The order came through the court’s emergency docket. The justices offered no explanation and recorded no dissents, according to CNN. The decision does not settle the case. It leaves in place a June ruling from the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals that had cleared Texas to begin enforcing the law during litigation. At issue is Texas Senate Bill 2420, the App Store Accountability Act. It directs app stores to determine whether a user is under 18 and, if so, to require a parent’s approval before that user can download an app or buy paid content inside one. Governor Greg Abbott signed the measure last May. A federal judge in Texas blocked it in December, days before it was due to take effect, on the grounds that it might violate the First Amendment. The appeals court paused that block in June, and the plaintiffs went to the Supreme Court on June 10, asking the justices to restore it. Who was opposed to the law? The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), a trade group, as well as Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEIT), and two teenagers who use apps for art and journalism. They argued against the statute’s age requirements, claiming it deprives minors of protected speech by denying them access to apps used for expression. The tech group called the age requirement unprecedented. “No state has ever required its citizens to prove their age before reading a newspaper, entering a bookstore, or even accessing the internet,” the CCIA said in its appeal. CCIA chief executive Matt Schruers put the same point to POLITICO: “Accessing the internet should not require surrendering personal data, just as entering a bookstore should not require showing government identification.” In its filing to the court, the group warned that letting the law stand would carry “profound consequences for the protection of digital speech,” Cameron Samuels, executive director of the student group, told POLITICO that age checks build a barrier for teenagers and risk “further limiting the rights and damaging the privacy of all internet users.” A bipartisan wall behind Texas Texas did not stand alone. A bipartisan group of 27 state attorneys general filed a brief backing the state, led by Florida Republican James Uthmeier. “Texas is fighting for the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their kids,” Uthmeier said, “and those rights should not be subject to the predations of Big Tech.” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton relied on an older regulatory tradition, telling the justices that states have the right to shield children from “dangerous modern products” just as states have protected minors from other dangerous products like alcohol and cigarettes. The ruling is not without precedent. The High Court allowed Mississippi to enforce age verification and parental consent rules on large social media companies, pending the conclusion of litigation, though Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote separately that the Mississippi law was “likely unconstitutional.” Last year, the Supreme Court upheld a separate Texas law forcing age checks on pornographic websites, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing for a 6-3 majority split along ideological lines. This case has a broader scope as it affects every app in a store, not just adult content or social platforms. The fight for privacy The debate about digital identity and anonymity is at the core of this legal battle. There’s been a recent trend of users being asked to provide facial recognition, upload IDs, or undergo credit card checks to prove they’re not minors. However, these methods also deny users anonymity when browsing. The UK and Australia have passed similar laws, with the UK Online Safety Act and Australia’s under-16 social media ban . The US House has passed its version of the Texas Law, the KIDS Act. The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them .
