Key point: Set to take effect on January 1, 2026, court blocks the Texas App Store Accountability Act on constitutional grounds.
A Texas federal district court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the Texas App Store Accountability Act today, stating that the law likely violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutionally vague. In October, an internet trade association sued the state of Texas over the act, and this month the case was consolidated with another case stating similar claims. The law was scheduled to take effect January 1, 2026, and imposed obligations on both app stores and developers providing mobile applications to Texas users. Texas will be unable to implement or enforce the act while the litigation is ongoing.
The ruling has broader implications for similar laws enacted last year in Louisiana and Utah, which are set to go into effect later next year. California also passed a law this past year with requirements for app developers, however, California’s law is more operational and in certain respects narrower than the content-focused nature of the other state laws. Review our blog here for a deep dive on California’s law.
In the below article, we provide a brief overview of the act and the court’s decision.
Background
The act governs app store owners (i.e., Google and Apple) and software application developers. A software application developer includes any developer of an app that is provided on the app store to users in Texas, with limited exceptions. The act requires both app stores and app developers to meet certain requirements depending on the age of app users.
To start, the app developer must assign an age rating to each app and in-app purchase and provide a description of what informed the rating to the app store. When an individual creates an account with the app store, the app store must verify the individual’s age category. If the app store determines that the individual is under 18, then the app store must require the minor’s account to be affiliated with a parent account and obtain consent for certain activities.
App stores are required to provide to an app developer the (1) age category of a user, and (2) whether consent has been collected for minors (under 18). The app developer must use the app-store-provided information to confirm a user’s age category. If users are under the age of 18, then app developers have consent requirements that they must comply with. The bulk of the requirements for app developers apply if the app has users under 18, including creating a system to verify the age category of a user and whether consent has been obtained.
In addition, the app developer is required to notify the app store of “significant changes,” to the application, including changes to the application’s terms of service or privacy policy, or changes to data collection, data sharing, data storage, new monetization, new advertisements in the application, or material functionality changes. The law also has strict data use and retention requirements, only allowing an app developer to use the personal data the app store provides to enforce age restrictions, comply with laws, and implement safety features. This personal data must be deleted on completion of verification of the user.
Court Ruling
The court concluded that the plaintiff is likely to succeed on its claims that the act violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutionally vague.
The court found that the act regulates content-based speech, and therefore the court was required to apply strict scrutiny. Applying strict scrutiny, Texas had to provide that the act is the “least restrictive means of achieving a compelling state interest.” Although the court agreed that protecting minors is a state interest, it did not find that preventing minors from accessing a wide variety of apps that foster protected speech a compelling interest. The court found that even if it were to accept that Texas had a compelling interest, the law was not narrowly tailored to that interest and Texas could have employed less restrictive means to accomplish its goal. For example, the court cited targeting regulations to apps that have specific addictive qualities. Overall, the court found that Texas failed strict scrutiny by being unable to demonstrate that “age-screening everyone in Texas and banning minors from accessing app store content” is the least restrictive method to eliminate harm.
In addition, the court addressed the plaintiff’s argument that the act is vague. A law is unconstitutionally vague when it fails to provide those targeted with a reasonable opportunity to know what conduct is prohibited or is so indefinite that it allows arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. The court provided that the act’s vagueness around what constitutes a “material change” and how app developers must assign and justify age ratings failed to give regulated entities clear notice of their obligations, raising a serious risk of arbitrary enforcement and chilling lawful speech.
Lastly, the court concluded that since the plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of its First Amendment claims, the plaintiff showed that members would suffer irreparable injury without an injunction and therefore, the court enjoined the act in its entirety while the case proceeds.