According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 2420 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state. The agencies involved—including the Office of Court Administration, the Office of the Attorney General, and the Comptroller of Public Accounts—anticipate that any additional responsibilities or administrative duties required by the bill could be handled within their existing resources and budgets.

From a state budgeting perspective, this suggests that SB 2420 would not require the appropriation of new funds, the hiring of additional personnel, or the establishment of new enforcement divisions. This is likely because the Committee Substitute removed the enforcement mechanisms, civil remedies, and regulatory mandates on software developers that had been included in the originally filed version of the bill.

At the local level, the fiscal note also concludes that there would be no significant financial burden placed on municipalities, counties, or other local entities. Since the bill does not create new obligations for local law enforcement, courts, or regulatory bodies, no additional expenditures or structural changes are expected.

In summary, the fiscal implications of SB 2420 are minimal. The bill is designed to impose regulatory requirements primarily on private-sector app store operators and does not create new administrative burdens or costs for state or local government.

SB 2420 aims to address legitimate concerns about minors’ exposure to harmful digital content and in-app purchases by requiring app stores to verify users' ages and obtain parental consent before minors can access or purchase software applications. While the bill’s intent is rooted in child safety, it represents an overreach of state authority into private enterprise and the family domain. The legislation effectively transfers the responsibility for monitoring minors' digital behavior from parents to tech platforms, undermining the foundational principle of personal responsibility.

The bill's requirements, including real-time parental consent for each download or purchase and the creation of affiliated accounts, place a significant compliance burden on private app stores. This is especially impactful for smaller or independent developers who may lack the resources to adapt their platforms accordingly. Additionally, the use of age verification mechanisms raises privacy concerns and may result in unintended consequences for adult users, such as increased surveillance or barriers to access.

Most importantly, this legislation is incompatible with the principle of limited government. It establishes a regulatory framework that is both intrusive and unnecessary, considering that numerous tools already exist for parental controls on mobile devices. Parents, not the state, are best positioned to determine what is appropriate for their children in the digital space.

For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 2420. It is not the proper role of government to mediate digital parenting, and doing so risks setting a precedent for further encroachment on both family autonomy and private enterprise.

• Individual Liberty: The bill mandates age verification and parental consent mechanisms for all users under 18, which may infringe on the ability of individuals—especially older teens—to access information, apps, or services freely. This could curtail freedom of speech and expression in the digital realm and set a precedent for broader state control over online activity. The requirement for platforms to verify identities and monitor use also raises concerns about surveillance and the erosion of anonymous access to digital services, which is fundamental to preserving personal liberty in online spaces.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill shifts the burden of supervising minors' digital behavior from parents to private corporations acting under state mandate. Rather than empowering families to use existing tools and make their own choices, the bill creates a top-down regulatory framework that attempts to standardize parental oversight. This undermines the principle that families—not government or tech platforms—are responsible for raising children and setting appropriate boundaries.
• Free Enterprise: The bill imposes compliance obligations on app stores, including age classification, parental consent tracking, and developer notifications when consent is revoked. While large platforms may have the resources to absorb these requirements, smaller businesses and independent developers may struggle. This kind of state-imposed uniformity in platform operations can stifle innovation, create liability risks, and deter market participation—especially among startups and low-capital firms—thereby interfering with a competitive, dynamic marketplace.
• Private Property Rights: While the bill doesn’t directly restrict physical property, it does affect how private platforms—digital property holders—must operate and manage user interactions. Mandating certain platform behaviors, data use practices, and consent procedures could be interpreted as an indirect infringement on how owners use or manage their digital property. However, this impact is relatively modest compared to the bill's other liberty implications.
• Limited Government: Perhaps most fundamentally, the bill departs from the principle of limited government by extending state authority into the realm of digital parenting and private platform regulation. It creates a new framework of oversight over app transactions and personal data management, all in service of objectives that could be more appropriately addressed through education, parental engagement, and market-driven tools. The bill represents a paternalistic approach to governance—one that undermines both family autonomy and market freedom.

• HB 4901 (Same As)