Estimated Time to Read: 11 minutes
In recent months, Texas has become a national focal point in the debate over digital privacy and government power. In September, Texas Policy Research examined that tension in relation to the release of the 2025 App privacy Index released by Tenscope. We explored how consumer data laws like House Bill 4, the Texas Data Privacy and Security Act (TDPSA), which passed in the 88th Legislative Session (2023) advanced meaningful transparency while warning that Senate Bill 2420 (SB 2420), which passed earlier this year in the 89th Legislative Session, risked going too far by substituting state control for family discretion. Now, that warning has proven prophetic.
The App Store Accountability Act, codified as Chapter 121 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, is already facing a federal lawsuit arguing that it violates the First Amendment and undermines parental authority. What lawmakers described as a child safety measure is now being challenged as an unconstitutional restriction on speech and an overreach of government power.
What the Law Requires
Senate Bill 2420, authored by State Sen. Angela Paxton (R-McKinney) and sponsored in the House by State Rep. Caroline Fairly (R-Amarillo), was signed by Governor Greg Abbott (R) earlier this year and takes effect January 1, 2026. On paper, it aims to protect minors online by regulating app stores and developers. In practice, it subjects nearly every Texan with a smartphone to state oversight.
Under Section 121.021, app stores must verify the age of every user through a “commercially reasonable method.” Each user is placed into one of four categories: child (under 13), younger teenager (13 to 15), older teenager (16 to 17), or adult (18 and older). Minors cannot download or purchase apps unless their account is linked to a verified parent or guardian under Section 121.022, who must individually approve each transaction. Blanket permissions are expressly prohibited.
Developers must assign age ratings to their apps and disclose the reasons for those ratings, while app stores must display those ratings publicly under Section 121.023. Both must protect user data through encryption and limit collection to the bare minimum under Section 121.025. Violations are deemed deceptive trade practices under Section 121.101, punishable by fines of up to ten thousand dollars per violation.
While lawmakers pitched these provisions as empowering parents, the law’s design centralizes control in the hands of the state. It transforms app stores into compliance arms of the government, requiring them to verify users, maintain identity records, and deny access to anyone who refuses to share personal information.
The Lawsuit: SEAT v. Paxton
In October 2025, Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT), along with two high school students, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas against Attorney General Ken Paxton (R). Their case, SEAT v. Paxton, seeks to block the law’s implementation on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) described the measure as an “unconstitutional internet age-verification law” that would “ban Texans, including adults, from accessing vast libraries of protected online speech.” The organization’s involvement underscores the seriousness of the challenge and reflects the broader concern that SB 2420 violates the First Amendment by restricting lawful expression for everyone under the guise of child protection.
The plaintiffs argue that app stores are modern public squares, gateways to the digital exchange of ideas, art, news, and education. Requiring proof of identity to access them, they say, restricts the ability to communicate freely. The lawsuit points out that the law applies not only to adult content but to all forms of expression, from educational tools and artistic platforms to news apps. That means every Texan must surrender anonymity to engage in digital speech.
The plaintiffs include SEAT, which organizes students around legislative engagement through apps like Slack and Instagram; a student journalist who publishes educational content for over one million followers; and a high school debater who uses YouTube, Reddit, and Adobe tools for research and creative work. Each of them would face new barriers to access and expression once the law takes effect.
Their complaint draws on Supreme Court precedent, notably Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011), which held that government cannot restrict minors’ access to protected speech simply because lawmakers deem it unsuitable. The plaintiffs argue that SB 2420 imposes exactly that kind of censorship, compelling app stores to enforce what the state thinks parents ought to want rather than what families decide for themselves.
The False Promise of Protection
When Texas Policy Research analyzed SB 2420 during the 89th Legislature, we warned that it was a case study in how privacy legislation can morph into government control. Our opposition stemmed from a belief that liberty and personal responsibility, not state regulation, are the foundation of real parental empowerment.
The law’s structure makes every app download a government-mediated transaction. A parent cannot authorize their teenager to use a music or educational app without state-defined verification procedures. Parents cannot grant broad trust to their children; they must instead repeat the process for every download and purchase. This constant preapproval turns everyday parenting decisions into bureaucratic chores.
The Legislature could have encouraged digital literacy, transparency, and voluntary parental controls. Instead, it chose coercion. The state now dictates how parents must supervise their children’s digital activity, effectively replacing personal judgment with administrative compliance.
Protecting Children Without Expanding Government
Critics sometimes claim that opposing SB 2420 means accepting that minors should have unrestricted access to explicit or harmful material. That claim is false. Texas Policy Research believes protecting children from exploitation and obscene content is essential, but we reject the notion that government micromanagement is the only, or best, way to achieve it. Existing state and federal laws already make it illegal to distribute obscene or pornographic material to minors. Parents also have powerful tools at their disposal to control access to inappropriate content, including device settings, parental filters, and third-party monitoring software.
The difference lies in who should make those decisions. We believe families, not the state, are best equipped to safeguard children’s online experiences. Education, accountability, and voluntary tools can empower parents to fulfill that responsibility without compromising the constitutional freedoms of millions of Texans.
HB 1181 vs. SB 2420: Two Very Different Laws
Some defenders of SB 2420 point to House Bill 1181 (HB 1181), passed by the 88th Legislature (2023), as a model for protecting children online and argue that opposition to SB 2420 is inconsistent with supporting HB 1181. That comparison is misplaced.
HB 1181, now codified as Chapter 129B of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, specifically targets commercial pornographic websites that knowingly publish or distribute material “harmful to minors.” It requires those sites to use reasonable age-verification methods to ensure that users are 18 or older and prohibits those platforms from retaining identifying information once verification is complete. The law applies narrowly to businesses whose content is primarily sexual in nature and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. It also mandates prominent health warnings about the documented harms of pornography and provides civil penalties for violations.
SB 2420, on the other hand, applies to all app stores and mobile applications, regardless of content. It requires every user in Texas, including adults, to verify their age before downloading any app and forces parents to grant individual consent for each app or in-app purchase. In other words, while HB 1181 addresses the distribution of obscene or pornographic material, SB 2420 governs the distribution of lawful and protected speech across the entire digital marketplace.
HB 1181 was designed to enforce existing obscenity standards and protect minors from material that is already unprotected by the First Amendment. SB 2420 extends government oversight to constitutionally protected content, punishing both businesses and users who simply wish to communicate, learn, or create online. Supporting HB 1181 is consistent with both morality and liberty; opposing SB 2420 is consistent with defending free speech and parental autonomy. The two laws serve fundamentally different purposes; one targets obscenity, the other restricts expression.
Economic and Innovation Consequences
SB 2420 also threatens Texas’s reputation as a national hub for innovation. The compliance systems it mandates will impose high operational costs that large corporations can absorb but small developers cannot. Requiring every app store and developer to verify identities, maintain parental consent records, and provide content disclosures will force many smaller firms to withdraw from the Texas market altogether.
These costs will not only stifle new startups but also restrict consumer choice. The most creative developers often operate on thin margins, and the added burden of legal compliance will push them toward safer, less experimental designs. The result will be a less diverse and less innovative app ecosystem, precisely the opposite of what Texans expect from a free-market state.
This outcome reflects what we warned about in our earlier article on the App Privacy Index. While that report emphasized the importance of transparency and ethical design, it also illustrated how legislative overreach can harm liberty. HB 4, the Texas Data Privacy and Security Act, successfully increased transparency without restricting freedom. SB 2420, by contrast, weaponizes privacy rhetoric to justify state control.
A Constitutional Problem
The lawsuit identifies SB 2420 as both a prior restraint and a content-based restriction on speech. It prevents users from accessing lawful content until they satisfy government-mandated conditions and justifies its regulation by claiming to protect minors from “harmful” material. That rationale has repeatedly been struck down by the courts because it allows government to decide which ideas are acceptable for public consumption.
The law’s sweeping reach also burdens adults who have no connection to the supposed harms it seeks to address. Every Texan must verify their identity to access apps, regardless of content or purpose. That requirement forces disclosure of personal data and removes the right to participate anonymously in digital discourse, an essential component of free speech in the modern age.
Section 121.026 makes clear that even well-intentioned parents are prohibited from granting general permission for their children to download apps. Each consent must be renewed for every purchase, creating a perpetual approval loop. This rigidity undermines family autonomy and contradicts Texas’s own tradition of trusting parents to raise their children without government intrusion.
The free-speech community has also raised serious concerns. FIRE’s involvement underscores that this case is not a partisan or fringe concern, it is a clear First Amendment issue. Their participation signals that SB 2420’s problems go beyond administrative inconvenience; they reach the core of what it means to speak, learn, and participate freely in a digital society.
Liberty Requires Trust, Not Control
Texas Policy Research evaluates legislation through five core liberty principles: individual liberty, personal responsibility, free enterprise, private property rights, and limited government. SB 2420 fails on each one.
It undermines individual liberty by forcing adults to verify their identity and surrender privacy to participate in digital life. It weakens personal responsibility by shifting authority from parents to the state and from families to corporations acting as state enforcers. It damages free enterprise by imposing heavy compliance burdens that punish small businesses and reward corporate giants. It infringes private property rights by dictating how app stores and developers must design their platforms. Finally, it abandons limited government by inserting state power into private, family-level decisions that should remain personal.
As we have previously noted, the goal should be balance, protecting privacy while preserving freedom. HB 4 demonstrated that such balance is possible. SB 2420 proves how easily it can be lost when government mistakes regulation for responsibility.
Conclusion: A Test of Texas Values
The SEAT v. Paxton lawsuit is more than a legal battle; it is a test of Texas’s commitment to liberty. If this law stands, it will normalize government-mandated identity verification for digital speech, setting a dangerous precedent for censorship cloaked as protection. Texans must ask whether the state that once championed individual freedom is willing to trade it for bureaucratic control in the name of safety.
Protecting children is a moral duty, but it should not come at the cost of constitutional rights or economic freedom. Real protection begins with education, transparency, and trust between parents and children, not with coercive mandates from Austin.
As Texas Policy Research continues to monitor the lawsuit, one truth remains constant: freedom and privacy are not opposing values but complementary ones. Texans can and should demand both. SB 2420 fails that test. It is now up to the courts, and ultimately, to the people of Texas, to ensure that the state’s pursuit of safety never comes at the expense of liberty.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
