Apple and Google Reluctantly Comply With Texas Age Verification Law

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Apple yesterday announced a plan to comply with a Texas age verification law and warned that changes required by the law will reduce privacy for app users. "Beginning January 1, 2026, a new state law in Texas -- SB2420 -- introduces age assurance requirements for app marketplaces and developers," Apple said yesterday in a post for developers. "While we share the goal of strengthening kids' online safety, we are concerned that SB2420 impacts the privacy of users by requiring the collection of sensitive, personally identifiable information to download any app, even if a user simply wants to check the weather or sports scores."

The Texas App Store Accountability Act requires app stores to verify users' ages and imposes restrictions on those under 18. Apple said that developers will have "to adopt new capabilities and modify behavior within their apps to meet their obligations under the law." Apple's post noted that similar laws will take effect later in 2026 in Utah and Louisiana. Google also recently announced plans for complying with the three state laws and said the new requirements reduce user privacy. "While we have user privacy and trust concerns with these new verification laws, Google Play is designing APIs, systems, and tools to help you meet your obligations," Google told developers in an undated post.

The Utah law is scheduled to take effect May 7, 2026, while the Louisiana law will take effect July 1, 2026. The Texas, Utah, and Louisiana "laws impose significant new requirements on many apps that may need to provide age appropriate experiences to users in these states," Google said. "These requirements include ingesting users' age ranges and parental approval status for significant changes from app stores and notifying app stores of significant changes."

No. F**k Texas.

[dgatwood]

Give app developers the option to simply not offer their apps in Texas, rather than subject their users to this invasion of privacy around the world to appease a few fascist a**holes.

That won't work

[rsilvergun]

These laws are being passed everywhere. They are template laws. A large and powerful group, funded by billionaires like Peter thiel, is pushing for this. So the same laws are being passed in every state. Classic think of the children bullshit means they even pass in California and New York.

The real problem I think is that at the end of the day most voters are not going to prioritize privacy over social issues and moral panics.

So if you get behind somebody that supports privacy rights that's all well a

Re:That won't work

[sarren1901]

That you at all think this is some how partisan is hilarious.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary: Texas! Utah! Louisiana!
(hint: those are red states)

You: it's not partisan
(hint: that's a stupid take)

The Democrats have been too-willing participants in surveillance measures, but this particular stupidity is a Republican thing.

The basis is anti-porn / anti-sex (by which they mean anything that may involve gay people).

This is driven by corporate greed

[rsilvergun]

And billionaire lust for power.

In America the Democrat party are freckless administrators. It's frustrating that they aren't more effective at solving problems but that doesn't mean they are in the pocket of the billionaires the way the Republicans are.

Obama for example is only worth about $12 million and Biden I think topped out around 21 million. Meanwhile Donald Trump got a 2 billion dollar bribe from Qatar and a couple more billion from Saudi Arabia not to mention the billions he's getting in th

Re:

[tunkamerica]

Democratic, not Democrat.

Re:

[shilly]

Feckless, not freckless!

Re:

[MikeS2k]

The Democrats take corporate bribes just the same as the GOP so how can you say one is better than the other? Because one is more pro-LGBT? Which is a sideshow of a sideshow when it comes to really what is wrong in the US.
They take bribes to ignore corporate power, they will bust unions but just behind the scenes rather than openly like the GOP but they still do it anyway. They are two faces of the same coin.

Anyway I believe the elites are kind of worrying about us having free and open access to the Intern

Re:

[WH44]

Look at the states where it is passing, and then please explain to me how it is not partisan.
I'm serious: I am interested in what leads you (and many others) to that conclusion, when, at least on the surface, it appears obviously partisan.

Re:

[sarren1901]

Other states and countries have the same BS laws. California has been working it's way to a age check porn law as well. So yes, it's a government thing, not a REPUBLICAN thing.

Sure, in this article we're only talking about the Republican states but let's not pretend it isn't happening in Democrat controlled areas or more left leaning countries. It is. UK is a spectacular example. Last I checked, they are definitely left of the Republicans, even their conservative party.

But sure, it's totally a Republican th

Re:

[shilly]

The UK's age check law because we have a Labour government that is terrified of moral panics *from the right wing press*, specifically the Daily Mail.

Re:

[sg_oneill]

That you at all think this is some how partisan is hilarious.

Just a pro-tip. Pointing out the actions of someone who happens to belong to one party or another isn't "partisan" its truth telling.

We know these laws are coming from template law orgs aligned with Thiel and the GOP. Demanding this fact be ignored in the name of "non partisanship" is dumb as shit. Anyway, whats wrong with partisanship. The best people of the 20th century where the partisans, especially when they where hanging fascists.

The law punishes churches

[ebunga]

This law will be used to gather data to hunt down good god-fearing white Christians and murder them when the details of the Bible apps they use is linked to their home address. I really wonder what these politicians are doing. Why do they hate Christians?

Re:

[OrangeTide]

Ending up on the no-fly list or having your credit rating ruined, all because you Liked a quote from the wrong edition of the Bible is the logical extreme of that.

Re:

[ebunga]

Buddy, there have been bombings because those Presbyterians over there only agreed with those other Presbyterians on 99.99999% of church doctrine. Your extreme isn't nearly extreme enough.

Cyberpunk Dystopia

[OrangeTide]

When most of us read a cyberpunk novel, we are lead to sympathize with the plucky protagonists trying to make it through an oppressive and corrupt system of technology.

When tech billionaires read the same novels, they get a raging hard on for the technology and the weird powerful hermits that control the world like a puppet master.

We need to not let psychopaths and sociopaths run the world. Most of us are not going to survive as free people if we let them win.

Re:

[0xG]

A large and powerful group, funded by billionaires like Peter thiel, is pushing for this.

You mean the AVPA – The Age Verification Providers Association?
https://avpassociation.com/ [avpassociation.com]

Re:

[sinkskinkshrieks]

That's the shit part of it. For "standardization", one horrible change in one state is more likely to be imposed on everyone everywhere. It's the corporations' lack of a backbone that enables it.

Google & Apple brought this on themselves

[Sebby]

By making themselves the gatekeepers of their respective platforms, they ensured that government would requirement to monitor their users. It's their own damn fault.

Re:

[RazorSharp]

By making themselves the gatekeepers of their respective platforms, they ensured that government would requirement to monitor their users. It's their own damn fault.

While there are certainly valid criticisms of how Apple and Google have structured their app stores, blaming them for massive government overreach that they used their extensive lobbying power to fight against is quite a reach. What's next? Will you blame PornHub for the Texas age verification law because, after all, making porn available in Texas is just asking for it?

Re:

[thegarbz]

False. Gatekeeping one thing doesn't give you an obligation to gatekeep another. The users aren't gatekept any more than government requirements. What is gatekept is the experience and apps and content displayed to users. You're still free to say whatever the fuck you want or do whatever you want with your Apple / Google device.

The internet routes around censorship

[SlydogSZ]

These type of rules impact the mainstream app stores but it also helps fuel small independent stores and other ways of downloading and installing apps. The gatekeepers will just be bypassed by those that have the will and technical skills.

Re:

[shilly]

Yeah, but it doesn't route around privacy violations. Those small stores will be full of apps promising to shield you from this intrusion while taking your data for nefarious purposes. Just like there are VPNs designed to hoover up user data.

Re:

[sinkskinkshrieks]

The problem is megacorps != the internet. They bend over in advance, lube up with KY, and give the orange Mussolini an award.

These corporations are complicit in censorship, repression, and unreasonable invasions of privacy.

Have to ask for more to not store anything now

[dynamo]

As an app developer who has not looked into this beyond this article summary and who prefers to collect as little data as possible, it seems like if Apple doesn't end up providing an explicit option to opt out of serving customers in states where they are going to require you to store data on customers, ironically now I could do that myself manually, but in doing so I would have to ask the user's permission to let the app see their location (or try to infer it from their IP if that were good enough for Appl

Reluctantly? Yeah right.

[cawdor]

I highly doubt they do this "reluctantly". Any excuse to get their hands on more information is welcomed by especially Google, an advertising company. The more they know about you, the more targeted the ads can be. I'm sure they have been dying to get laws that FORCE users to give them their actual birth date.

Apple and Google

[Shakes Fist]

Those 2 companies already know how old you are (and who your entire family is, your credit card limit, how much distance you travel daily, where you go etc) so how is it someone else's fault that this is happening? They simply register a token on your device for "Over 18" that gets interrogated by a new app before installation. Done.

Re:

[0xG]

Yep. Apple and Google crying the blues about data collection is more than a little bit rich.

Re:

[tlhIngan]

They're only reluctant in having to do it at all. They generally have the ages already. The problem is the changes needed to accomplish it - basically anyone under 18 is no longer allowed to have their own Apple account and it needs to be under a Family account where a parent or guardian must approve all app installs and purchases.

Sure, if you're 10, makes perfect sense. But I'm sure you probably remember when you're 16 or 17 and probably wanting a little freedom from your parents - maybe even being able to

I don't understand why this is so difficult

[The-Ixian]

States are starting to allow digital versions of IDs in phone wallets.

Why not make a simple API to that digital ID that would be a simple yes/no to any app or web page's query (permission permitting) to whether or not the user is over X age?

This doesn't have to be perfect and people will game it, but people can already make fake IDs, etc. The purpose of laws like this is to be good enough, not to be perfect.

Re:

[snowsmann]

This already works with Louisiana Wallet app (the digital ID solution in this state) with some sites.

Re:

[tepples]

Why not make a simple API to that digital ID that would be a simple yes/no to any app or web page's query (permission permitting) to whether or not the user is over X age?

Your suggestion is defeated by parents' habit of handing a phone to a child as a digital babysitter. It's how we lost comment sections on animated videos on YouTube in December 2019.

Re:

[The-Ixian]

Obviously, no technical solution will ever replace parental attention.

It does seem strange to me, though, that we would require ID for buying booze or adult content in person but we don't seem to care when it's online.

I feel like there is some way to accomplish this will minimizing privacy violations.

Re:

[neoRUR]

You all don't understand. This will require all apps, By Law, to verify your age. Not in a popup click on this way, but in a send me your real ID so I can verify you. Google is developing and API to help with this, Apple is making changes. But any app now that you want to use, will collect your info, they can say they wont store it, but they will have it. If your under 18, it will also now require your parents to send in info and approve and get approval from the app. Before using it, so yea sales are going

Just don't pull a Discord.

[Fly Swatter]

and let a 'third party' be sloppy with the data.

Re:

[sinkskinkshrieks]

That will never happen. Once given, the data will be sold to data brokers and eventually stolen and sold on the dark web for scam targeting.

Fuck White Supremacists

[sinkskinkshrieks]

This is yet another chipping away of privacy and individual freedoms by the Christian Taliban. If they had their way, they would do everything the actual Taliban does including banning dancing, art, music, and unveiled women in public. They hate others having freedom and any brown person who is less miserable than them. Fuck the 2 wheel fascist and his corrupt Confederates.

- Blue dot from hill country.