Texas Secures Discord Injunction as Child Safety Debate Grows

Estimated Time to Read: 11 minutes

On July 24, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) announced that the State had secured an agreed Temporary Injunction (TI) against Discord in its consumer protection lawsuit alleging the company misrepresented the safety of its platform for minors.

The agreement requires Discord to implement additional protections for Texas users while the underlying lawsuit continues. Although Attorney General Paxton described the agreement as a significant legal victory, the litigation itself is far from over. The TI does not resolve whether Discord violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), nor does it constitute a final judgment on the merits. Instead, it establishes interim requirements while preserving both parties' legal claims and defenses as the case proceeds.

For policymakers preparing for the 90th Texas Legislature, however, the importance of this case extends well beyond Discord.

The hearings highlighted many of the same questions lawmakers are likely to confront in the coming session. How should online platforms protect minors from predators? What responsibilities belong to technology companies, parents, and government? How should Texas enforce consumer protection laws without unnecessarily infringing on free speech, privacy, or lawful digital expression?

Those questions have become increasingly central as Texas continues expanding its focus on online child safety.

Why Texas Sued Discord

Texas filed suit in May 2026, alleging that Discord violated the Texas DTPA by marketing its platform as safe for children while allegedly failing to implement protections consistent with those representations.

Rather than attempting to regulate online speech directly, the State framed its case as one of consumer protection. According to Texas, Discord publicly promoted features such as "Safe by Design," "Safe by Default," parental protections, moderation tools, and safeguards against child exploitation in ways that allegedly created expectations not reflected in the platform's actual operation.

Texas investigators evaluated Discord's safety settings, communication features, moderation systems, and account protections, arguing that the platform's default configuration exposed minors to risks inconsistent with the company's public safety messaging. Those alleged discrepancies form the basis of the State's deceptive trade practices claims.

Discord disputes those allegations. The company maintains that it invests extensively in trust and safety, continuously improves its moderation systems, cooperates with law enforcement, and reports child sexual abuse material to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Discord further argues that many of the State's requested changes involve complex tradeoffs affecting privacy, platform functionality, and user autonomy rather than simple engineering decisions.

Those competing perspectives framed the evidence presented during two days of hearings before the 199th Judicial District Court in Collin County.

What the Temporary Injunction Actually Does

Public attention has understandably focused on Attorney General Paxton's announcement that Texas secured a TI. Just as important, however, is understanding what the agreement actually accomplishes.

First, the injunction, as the name implies, is temporary. It establishes operating requirements while the lawsuit continues but does not determine whether Discord violated Texas law. Those questions remain for later stages of the litigation.

Second, the order was entered by agreement of the parties. That means Discord did not admit liability, and Texas did not obtain a final ruling on its underlying allegations. Instead, both sides agreed to temporary conditions while preserving their respective legal positions.

Under the agreement, Discord must implement additional protections for Texas users, including extending age assurance measures and default safety settings already used in places like the United Kingdom to Texas users within 90 days. The order allows Discord flexibility to employ commercially reasonable methods of age assurance, requires confidential compliance reports to the State every 30 days until implementation is complete, and permits the company to seek additional time if it demonstrates good-faith efforts toward compliance. The agreement also expressly preserves Discord's legal defenses, including jurisdictional and venue objections, as the litigation moves forward.

Those requirements represent meaningful interim changes. They do not, however, resolve the broader dispute over whether Discord's public representations violated the Texas DTPA.

Perhaps the most valuable aspect of the hearings was not the temporary relief itself, but the competing philosophies each side presented regarding how online platforms should protect children while balancing privacy, communication, and user autonomy.

Key Takeaways from the Hearings

Although the parties disagreed on many aspects of the case, the hearings ultimately centered on three fundamental questions.

First, did Discord's default safety features provide the level of protection consumers were led to expect?

Second, what does "Safety by Design" actually require when developing online platforms used by minors?

Finally, where should responsibility for online child safety ultimately reside among technology companies, parents, and government?

Those themes shaped nearly every witness's testimony and provide a useful framework for understanding both the litigation and the broader policy debate.

You can find the Reporter's Record (transcripts) of the testimony at the hearings here:

• Day One
• Day Two

Default Safety Settings Took Center Stage

One of the State's principal arguments focused on Discord's default safety settings for newly created accounts identified as belonging to minors.

Investigators from the Attorney General's Office testified that when they created an account representing a thirteen-year-old user, numerous communication features remained enabled by default. According to their testimony, certain direct messaging settings, notification options, content filters, and other permissions were configured in ways they believed exposed minors to unnecessary risks unless users or parents manually changed those settings. Texas argued these defaults were inconsistent with Discord's public representations regarding child safety and "Safe by Default" design.

The State also emphasized that Discord already deploys more restrictive default protections in jurisdictions including the United Kingdom, Australia, and Brazil, arguing that these differences demonstrated the company already possessed the technical capability to provide stronger protections when required.

Discord did not necessarily dispute that different jurisdictions employ different safety configurations. Instead, the company argued that stronger restrictions do not automatically translate into better outcomes for young users. Its witnesses contended that online safety involves balancing competing objectives, including privacy, communication, parental involvement, and the practical ways teenagers actually use technology.

That disagreement over default settings ultimately reflected a broader question that extends far beyond Discord: should online platforms maximize restrictions by default, or should they provide flexible tools that parents and users can tailor to their own circumstances?

Safety by Design Is More Complicated Than It Sounds

The hearings also exposed competing understandings of what technology companies mean when they describe products as being designed with safety in mind.

Texas argued that Discord's public messaging surrounding "Safety by Design" and "Safe by Default" created reasonable expectations that the platform's design choices would consistently prioritize protecting minors. According to the State, the default configuration observed by investigators failed to meet those expectations.

Discord's expert witness, Dr. Pamela Wisniewski, described "Safety by Design" less as a fixed engineering standard and more as a design philosophy requiring companies to proactively consider safety throughout product development while evaluating benefits, risks, tradeoffs, and unintended consequences. She testified that companies should involve trust and safety professionals, assess how users actually interact with technology, and continuously refine safety features as new risks emerge.

That distinction became especially important when discussing engineering feasibility.

Texas presented evidence intended to show that many of the requested platform changes were technologically achievable. Discord responded that the more difficult question was not whether engineers could implement particular features, but whether doing so would unintentionally create new problems.

For example, testimony explored situations involving private reporting of misconduct to moderators, communication within established communities, peer mentorship, and other legitimate interactions that could become more difficult under highly restrictive default settings. Discord's expert also warned that overly restrictive systems may encourage users to circumvent safety mechanisms through alternate accounts, VPNs, or migration to less regulated platforms.

Whether those concerns ultimately outweigh the benefits of stricter protections remains a matter of debate. The hearings nevertheless illustrated that technology policy often involves balancing competing interests rather than choosing between clearly right and clearly wrong answers.

The Broader Debate Is About Platform Responsibility

Although much of the testimony focused on technical features, the hearings repeatedly returned to a broader philosophical question. Who bears primary responsibility for protecting children online?

Texas argued that companies making public representations about child safety should be expected to provide protections consistent with those claims. From the State's perspective, consumers should be able to rely on a company's safety representations when deciding whether a platform is appropriate for their children.

Discord agreed that platforms have important responsibilities but argued that online safety cannot be reduced to platform design alone. Witnesses emphasized the continuing role of parents, user education, platform reporting tools, and ongoing improvements to safety systems as part of a broader approach to protecting minors.

Those competing perspectives reflect a larger policy conversation that lawmakers will almost certainly revisit during the 90th Legislature. The challenge is not simply deciding whether online platforms should do more to protect children. It is determining where the appropriate balance lies among corporate responsibility, parental authority, consumer protection, and government regulation.

Where the Lawsuit Goes From Here

Despite the significance of the TI, the litigation remains in its early stages.

The agreed order establishes temporary requirements while preserving each party's ability to continue litigating the underlying claims. Texas will still bear the burden of proving that Discord's public safety representations violated the Texas DTPA, while Discord will continue defending both its platform design decisions and its legal arguments.

Regardless of the ultimate outcome, the hearings have already provided lawmakers with a detailed record of the practical, legal, and policy questions surrounding online child safety. Those issues are likely to influence legislative discussions long after this particular lawsuit reaches its conclusion.

Policy Implications for the 90th Texas Legislature

While the TI addresses Discord specifically, the broader questions raised during the hearings are unlikely to remain confined to a single lawsuit.

Texas lawmakers have increasingly focused on online child safety in recent legislative sessions through proposals involving social media access, app store accountability, age verification, school-issued devices, artificial intelligence, and platform transparency. The Discord litigation adds another important chapter to that ongoing discussion. Unlike many of those proposals, however, this lawsuit proceeds under existing consumer protection law. Rather than creating new regulatory authority, Texas argues that Discord violated laws already on the books by allegedly making representations about its platform that did not accurately reflect the protections available to consumers.

Consumer protection has long been one of government's legitimate functions. If a company materially misrepresents the safety features of its product, the State has a well-established interest in investigating those claims and, where appropriate, seeking remedies under the Texas DTPA.

At the same time, the hearings demonstrated that many questions surrounding online child safety extend well beyond whether a company engaged in deceptive business practices. The testimony explored broader issues involving privacy, anonymous communication, parental authority, engineering tradeoffs, and the practical consequences of government-mandated platform design.

Those questions deserve careful legislative consideration because technology policy rarely involves simple choices between safety and risk. More often, lawmakers must balance multiple legitimate interests that sometimes compete with one another.

Protecting Children Without Sacrificing Liberty

Texas Policy Research (TPR) has consistently supported efforts to protect children from online exploitation while cautioning against policies that unnecessarily expand government authority over lawful digital activity. That perspective is reflected in the Texas Liberty Compact, which identifies protecting free speech and digital expression as one of our core legislative priorities.

The Liberty Compact recognizes that digital platforms have become indispensable forums for communication, education, commerce, and civic participation. While government has an important role in prosecuting criminals, protecting consumers, and enforcing the law, technological change should not become a pretext for expanding government control over lawful speech, private communications, or digital expression.

Accordingly, the Liberty Compact calls for policymakers to pursue targeted consumer protection measures, preserve parental authority wherever possible, ensure technology regulations comply with constitutional protections, and avoid broad restrictions on lawful digital platforms that unnecessarily burden individual liberty.

Those principles have consistently guided TPR's analysis of technology legislation.

Whether examining the federal Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), House Bill 186's (HB 186) proposed restrictions on minors' social media access, Senate Bill 2420 (SB 2420) regulating app stores, or the Senate's recent interim charge examining online child safety, we have repeatedly reached the same conclusion. Protecting children is a legitimate and necessary public objective. But legislation should remain narrowly tailored to address demonstrable harms without unnecessarily infringing upon constitutional rights, replacing parental responsibility, or expanding government authority beyond its proper role.

The Discord litigation reinforces that same principle.

If Texas ultimately proves that Discord misled consumers regarding the safety of its platform, enforcement of existing consumer protection laws is entirely appropriate. At the same time, lawmakers should recognize that many of the broader policy questions discussed during the hearings involve legitimate constitutional and practical considerations that deserve thoughtful analysis before imposing sweeping statutory mandates on rapidly evolving technologies.

As legislators prepare for the 90th Legislature, the objective should not be choosing between child safety and liberty. The challenge is ensuring Texas continues to protect both.

---