Estimated Time to Read: 8 minutes
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) has filed suit against Snap Inc. (Snapchat), alleging violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) and the Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment (SCOPE) Act.
The lawsuit claims that Snapchat misrepresented the amount and nature of mature content available on its platform, selected misleading age ratings in major app stores, failed to disclose the addictive nature of its design features, and did not comply with statutory parental verification and consent requirements.
Specifically, the State argues that Snapchat’s “12+” rating in the Apple App Store and “T for Teen” rating in other marketplaces are inconsistent with the frequency of profanity, sexual content, drug references, and mature themes allegedly accessible to minors. The petition also emphasizes engagement tools such as Snapstreaks, infinite scroll, autoplay, and push notifications as features that encourage “addictive” compulsive use among teenagers.
On its face, this is framed as a consumer protection case. The Attorney General’s office contends that parents rely on accurate age ratings and content disclosures when deciding whether to allow their children to download an app. If those disclosures are false or misleading, the DTPA provides a lawful enforcement mechanism.
If the lawsuit were strictly about enforcing truth in advertising, it would fall comfortably within the traditional scope of state authority.
But the broader context tells a larger story.
From Markets to Mandates
During the 89th Legislative Session (2025), Texas enacted Senate Bill 2420 (SB 2420), the App Store Accountability Act, authored by State Sen. Angela Paxton (R-McKinney). The law requires app stores to verify users’ age categories, affiliate minor accounts with verified parent accounts, and obtain parental consent before minors can download or purchase software applications.
It also makes violations actionable under the DTPA.
This is not a modest tweak to consumer disclosure rules. It creates a statewide compliance framework for how youth digital access must function. Age categories are defined by statute. Parental consent must be obtained for each download or in-app purchase. App stores must maintain verification systems and transmit age category data to developers.
Republican lawmakers defended SB 2420 as protecting children and empowering parents, but structurally, it shifts authority upward. Instead of parents deciding how to supervise their children’s app downloads through device settings, household rules, and voluntary parental controls, the state now mandates how app stores must design their consent architecture.
The Snapchat lawsuit operates within that enforcement ecosystem. It signals that Texas is not merely passing statutes. It intends to enforce them aggressively.
Statewide School Phone Mandate: A Parallel Expansion
The same session that produced SB 2420 also passed House Bill 1481 (HB 1481), authored by State Rep. Caroline Fairly (R-Amarillo), requiring school districts and charter schools to adopt policies prohibiting student use of personal communication devices during the school day, subject to limited exceptions.
Texas Policy Research (TPR) opposed HB 1481, not because digital distraction is imaginary, but on philosophical and structural grounds. Decisions about device use in classrooms historically belonged to districts, principals, teachers, and parents. HB 1481 standardized that decision at the state level.
When Republicans campaign on local control and limited government, they often criticize centralized mandates in other policy areas. Yet in youth technology policy, many of those same lawmakers are increasingly comfortable imposing uniform rules from Austin.
SB 2420, HB 1481, and now high-profile litigation against digital platforms form a pattern. The response to social media concerns is not primarily to strengthen parental authority. It is to expand state authority.
The Liberty Tension
There is an important distinction that must be made.
Republicans in Texas regularly and publicly affirm their commitment to limited government, free enterprise, personal responsibility, and parental rights. Those principles have long defined the party’s identity.
Yet in the area of youth technology, many Republican lawmakers are increasingly turning to centralized mandates, compliance regimes, and enforcement actions that expand government oversight of private platforms and family decision-making.
The rhetoric remains focused on empowering parents. The mechanism, however, increasingly relies on state command. There is a difference between ensuring that companies do not deceive consumers and constructing a permanent regulatory architecture governing how families access digital tools.
The former aligns with limited government principles. The latter begins to resemble central planning in the name of child protection.
That distinction matters.
Consumer Protection Versus Control
It is important to be clear. If a company misrepresents its product, the state has a legitimate role in enforcing consumer protection law. The DTPA exists precisely for that purpose.
Parents deserve accurate information about age ratings, content exposure, and privacy practices. Enforcing transparency is consistent with free markets and limited government. Fraud and deception distort markets.
But the policy conversation rarely stops at transparency.
Once lawmakers begin regulating app architecture, engagement design, algorithmic recommendations, parental verification structures, and age categorization frameworks, the state moves beyond correcting deception and into designing social outcomes.
That is a fundamentally different enterprise.
When the government dictates how private platforms must structure digital relationships between parents and children, it is no longer merely enforcing honesty. It is reshaping the digital marketplace according to legislative judgment.
The Mental Health Argument and the Risk of Overreach
Much of the political momentum behind youth technology regulation stems from legitimate concerns about rising teen anxiety, depression, loneliness, and self-harm.
Social media is frequently cited as a contributing factor. But correlation does not automatically justify centralized regulation. Teen mental health trends coincide with numerous cultural and structural changes, including pandemic lockdowns, school closures, social isolation, academic pressure, and broader cultural fragmentation.
Public policy that isolates a single technological variable and constructs sweeping compliance systems around it risks oversimplifying complex social problems. The temptation is understandable. When children are struggling, lawmakers feel pressure to act. But not every serious problem yields to statutory mandates.
The harder truth is that engaged parenting, strong families, local community norms, and responsible digital habits cannot be legislated into existence.
Parental Authority Versus State Substitution
The core question is simple.
Who is primarily responsible for guiding a child’s technology use?
The traditional conservative answer has been clear. Parents bear primary responsibility. The government’s role is limited to protecting against fraud, crime, and clear harm.
Increasingly, however, the policy trend suggests something different. When parents struggle to regulate screen time, the state imposes device bans. When parents find app settings confusing, the state mandates age verification frameworks. When teens consume questionable content, lawmakers propose platform-wide restrictions.
At some point, the line between empowering parents and replacing them becomes blurred.
HB 1481 tells schools what must be done statewide. SB 2420 tells app stores how parental consent must function. The Snapchat lawsuit seeks to enforce compliance and reshape disclosure and design practices.
None of these policies exists in isolation. They represent a governing philosophy that sees state authority as the primary corrective mechanism for cultural and technological change.
For a party that speaks often of limited government, that should prompt introspection.
The 2027 Legislative Session: A Fork in the Road
The 2027 Texas Legislative Session will likely revisit youth technology policy.
Lawmakers will evaluate the implementation of SB 2420. If compliance proves uneven or controversial, calls for expanding age verification or direct platform regulation may grow. HB 1481’s statewide phone mandate will be assessed. If local districts experience enforcement complications or unintended consequences, debates over local control may resurface.
Additional social media restrictions that previously stalled could return with renewed political energy. The risk is escalation. Each perceived failure of prior regulation becomes a justification for broader regulation.
Republicans must decide whether they intend to reaffirm limited government principles or continue down a path where child protection becomes the rationale for expanding state oversight into family life and private markets.
A Limited Government Path Forward
Protecting children is a legitimate public concern. But good intentions do not automatically justify centralized mandates. A limited government approach would focus on the following:
- Enforce existing consumer protection laws when companies misrepresent their products.
- Encourage transparency and voluntary parental tools rather than imposing rigid compliance structures.
- Preserve local control in schools rather than defaulting to statewide mandates.
- Strengthen parental education, digital literacy, and family-level responsibility.
- Recognize that cultural problems cannot be engineered away through statutory design.
Republicans often argue that government cannot replace the role of the family in other policy areas. That principle should not be abandoned when the issue is smartphones and social media.
Empower Parents, Do Not Substitute for Them
The lawsuit against Snapchat may succeed or fail on its legal merits. Courts will decide whether the alleged misrepresentations violate Texas law. But the broader policy direction deserves serious reflection.
Texas Republicans have built a brand around limited government, free enterprise, parental rights, and personal responsibility. In youth technology policy, that brand is increasingly in tension with legislative and regulatory action. There is a difference between ensuring honesty in commerce and constructing compliance regimes that reshape family decisions.
If Republicans believe parents should lead, public policy should reinforce that responsibility, not gradually transfer it to administrative enforcement.
The 2027 legislative session will reveal whether Texas doubles down on centralized youth technology regulation or recalibrates toward a more consistent application of limited government principles.
For those who believe in liberty, the answer should not depend on the issue of the day.
It should depend on the principle.
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!
