Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
The Courts

Judge Blocks Texas App Store Age Verification Law (theverge.com) 43

Posted by BeauHD from the not-so-fast dept.
A federal judge blocked Texas' app store age-verification law, ruling it likely violates the First Amendment by forcing platforms to gate speech and collect data in an overly broad way. The law was set to go into effect on January 1, 2026. The Verge reports: In an order granting a preliminary injunction on the Texas App Store Accountability Act (SB 2420), Judge Robert Pitman wrote that the statute "is akin to a law that would require every bookstore to verify the age of every customer at the door and, for minors, require parental consent before the child or teen could enter and again when they try to purchase a book." Pitman has not yet ruled on the merits of the case, but his decision to grant the preliminary injunction means he believes its defenders are unlikely to prevail in court.

Pitman found that the highest level of scrutiny must be applied to evaluate the law under the First Amendment, which means the state must prove the law is "the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling state interest." The judge found this is not the case and that it wouldn't even survive intermediate scrutiny, because Texas has so far failed to prove that its goals are connected to its methods. Since Texas already has a law requiring age verification for porn sites, Pitman said that "only in the vast minority of applications would SB 2420 have a constitutional application to unprotected speech not addressed by other laws." Though Pitman acknowledged the importance of safeguarding kids online, he added, "the means to achieve that end must be consistent with the First Amendment. However compelling the policy concerns, and however widespread the agreement that the issue must be addressed, the Court remains bound by the rule of law." "The Texas App Store Accountability Act is the first among a series of similar state laws to face a legal challenge, making the ruling especially significant, as Congress considers a version of the statute," notes The Verge. "The laws, versions of which also passed in Utah and Louisiana, aim to impose age verification standards at the app store level, making companies like Apple and Google responsible for transmitting signals about users' ages to app developers to block users from age-inappropriate experiences."

"The state can still appeal the ruling with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has a history of reversing blocks on internet regulations."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Blocks Texas App Store Age Verification Law More

Judge Blocks Texas App Store Age Verification Law

Comments Filter:

  • As an outsider I see a country where kids kill other kids at schools with guns and these guys are focusing on legislating age restrictions on apps?

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 )

      School shootings are terrible, but in the USA, kids are still over 100 times more likely to die in a car accident than in a school shooting.

      And there are many other causes of death that are higher than school shootings as well. School shootings are relatively low on the list.

      Of course, they are still terrible, but if we are going to prioritize child safety, the numbers make it clear that children in the USA face many much greater threats than school shootings, and so we would do well to focus on those.

      Are

      • School shootings are terrible, but in the USA, kids are still over 100 times more likely to die in a car accident than in a school shooting.

        And there are many other causes of death that are higher than school shootings as well. School shootings are relatively low on the list.

        Of course, they are still terrible, but if we are going to prioritize child safety, the numbers make it clear that children in the USA face many much greater threats than school shootings, and so we would do well to focus on those.

        Are there steps we could take to make vehicular travel safer in the USA? Absolutely. Would they save children's lives? Absolutely. So, it seems clear what our priority here should be.

        Yeah. Seems clear. Work on both problems. Can you seriously not imagine a functional government that can work on two things at one time?

        • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

          by houstonbofh ( 602064 )
          Texas did. It created the Guardian School program in 2007 which is a method for school employees who chose to, to remain armed and defend their students. There has never been a mass shooting at a Guardian school.

          • Re:Wrong Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)

            by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2025 @11:25PM (#65878871)

            Texas did. It created the Guardian School program in 2007 which is a method for school employees who chose to, to remain armed and defend their students. There has never been a mass shooting at a Guardian school.

            Do you know how crazy that sounds to the rest of the planet?

            • Texas did. It created the Guardian School program in 2007 which is a method for school employees who chose to, to remain armed and defend their students. There has never been a mass shooting at a Guardian school.

              Do you know how crazy that sounds to the rest of the planet?

              Which part of the planet? Rotherham, say?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by mjwx ( 966435 )

              Texas did. It created the Guardian School program in 2007 which is a method for school employees who chose to, to remain armed and defend their students. There has never been a mass shooting at a Guardian school.

              Do you know how crazy that sounds to the rest of the planet?

              Not just crazy, but also ignorant.

              It's like saying I (living in the UK) have a magic rock that keeps away tigers. I haven't been attacked by a tiger in the UK ergo, my magic rock works and this cannot be doubted.

              Yep, I live in the UK, a place like most of the rest of the world where school shootings are just not a thing.

              • You live in a place that bans guns and has signs all over about preventing knife crime. There is an entire meme community about one of your politicians saying "Nobody needs a knife" and steak dinners... So forgive me if I do not see you as the shining hope of peace and love.

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by dbialac ( 320955 )
              It's a tradeoff. Try to invade the US. Good luck when everyone you encounter has an gun, and often an AR-15, pointed at your head.

            • It sounds crazy to people who live in dense cities where they are constantly swimming through an ocean of strangers.

              Out in rural areas (of which Texas has a significant number) people live much further from their neighbors, police protection is spread thin, and families have to fend off dangerous wild animals in their back yards as well as protect themselves from criminals.

              In that environment, it is just a given that everyone is going to have firearms. It would be insane not to.

              So it really doesn't matter

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Texas did. It created the Guardian School program in 2007 which is a method for school employees who chose to, to remain armed and defend their students. There has never been a mass shooting at a Guardian school.

            Florida also has a Manatee-free school program where teachers are allowed to carry harpoons to defend their students. There has never been a mass manatee attack at a Harpoon school. /s

            Since there were only 46 school shootings in the entire US in 2007, that program seems more theater than prevention. And constantly waving that non-causational fact in people's faces like a red flag before a bull seems to be just begging someone to challenge your assertion.

            • You are correct in that the numbers are too small to draw conclusions. But it is still data, albeit a thankfully small sample size. And it has remained at zero for Guardian Schools for the past 18 years. That is why so many Texas schools went Guardian after Uvalde.

          • There's never been a mass school shoot in most schools across the entire planet, and *I looked this up and confirmed it to be true* they don't arm their staff their either.

            • I watched documentaries on police response to school shootings. A very common theme is: the shooters shoot themselves as soon as they see an armed response.

              Former police response strategies that involved surrounding the building in an attempt to catch the perpetrator and going in cautiously with in groups wound up just costing innocent lives. The response that involved police just charging in as soon as they got there resulted in halted shootings as soon as the shooters saw them.

              And, it should be obvious

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dbialac ( 320955 )
      You see what makes the news. Everyday events don't make international press. Where I live, in a small city, everyone goes for walks as we nod or wave at each other. When they ask how you're doing, their response is genuine. Now look up the term "Gen Z Stare". You don't get that from Gen Z. They're so sucked into social media that they don't even associate with one another face to face. These kinds of antisocial behaviors out of our children is why we need age restrictions.A simple work around is to require

  • Sane Judge (Score:3)

    by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2025 @07:19PM (#65878493) Homepage

    You want to block content you claim is inappropriate (Personally I think a lot of political content is the least appropriate), fine.

    But you do not have the right to ID someone before they ask for any content at all. By doing so you are clearly attempting to invade the privacy of everyone even if they are not looking for inappropriate content.

    This ignores the real problem - your ID methods are shown to be tremendously flawed and easily beaten by the children you claim to be protecting. That is, your ID method never protects anyone.

  • It is a certainty that this sane judge's ruling will be overturned, as the U.S. Supreme Taliban has already ruled this particular law to be Constitutional. That's why this insanity is spreading throughout the Taliban-controlled U.S.

    • Ya, I tend to trust the SCOUTS to nip this brand of idiocy in the bud when it crops up every generation, but nope, ignoring all the precedence of least infringing, privacy, and the increasing amount of data breaches... fuck that as long as states can virtue signal they are doing something to protect the kiddos.

      And this will certainly not be abused, not have any creep, and upends decades of juror's prudence.

      Fuck this court and fuck this government..

    • I prefer to think of it as the Y'alliban

  • Analogy not strong enough (Score:4, Interesting)

    by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2025 @09:06PM (#65878703)

    >"Judge Robert Pitman wrote that the statute "is akin to a law that would require every bookstore to verify the age of every customer at the door"

    No, it is much worse. Because it isn't just a store, this is much broader than that. It is more akin to having a mall, and requiring every person to show an ID at the entrance, AND THAT DATA IS RECORDED, and stored, and linked, and shared, and later stolen and abused. AND you have someone follow you around everywhere you go there and take notes.

    If you want to protect your children in the mall, YOU GO WITH YOUR CHILDREN and supervise what they have access to. It is not the job of the mall to parent your kids.

    I don't want to live in a world where adults have to ID themselves to gain access to websites or app stores. I DO want to live in a world where parents (and their agents) do not allow their children to have unsupervised access to unrestricted, internet-connected devices. Give parents better lockdown and whitelist tools AND promote a new social norm that you can't just give a stock connected phone/tablet/computer to a child and walk away.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      >"Judge Robert Pitman wrote that the statute "is akin to a law that would require every bookstore to verify the age of every customer at the door"

      No, it is much worse. Because it isn't just a store, this is much broader than that. It is more akin to having a mall, and requiring every person to show an ID at the entrance, AND THAT DATA IS RECORDED, and stored, and linked, and shared, and later stolen and abused. AND you have someone follow you around everywhere you go there and take notes.

      If you want to protect your children in the mall, YOU GO WITH YOUR CHILDREN and supervise what they have access to. It is not the job of the mall to parent your kids.

      I don't want to live in a world where adults have to ID themselves to gain access to websites or app stores. I DO want to live in a world where parents (and their agents) do not allow their children to have unsupervised access to unrestricted, internet-connected devices. Give parents better lockdown and whitelist tools AND promote a new social norm that you can't just give a stock connected phone/tablet/computer to a child and walk away.

      This is the worst kind of parenting.

      You're basically advocating that everyone becomes a helicopter parent (and the ensuing "tiger mom", American spelling seems appropriate).

      Inevitably, a teen is going to find a way to see the things you're so jealously guarding them against. In fact the more zealously you guard them the more tempting it becomes. From my high school class, the worst drug addicts as young adults came from the strictest parents as teens. Those of us who dabbled in drugs and alcohol as ki

      • >"You're basically advocating that everyone becomes a helicopter parent (and the ensuing "tiger mom", American spelling seems appropriate)."

        Not at all. I am saying parents shouldn't throw unrestricted internet devices at kids. That isn't "helicoptering."

        >"From my high school class, the worst drug addicts as young adults came from the strictest parents as teens. Those of us who dabbled in drugs and alcohol as kids were the least mal adjusted"

        So, parents should give children access to drugs?? That is

  • The government can provide a 'not a sex offender/violent criminal' check, a 'not an illegal immigrant' check but not a 'legally a child" check. Why is that? People can make money from it, or choose to avoid it. Children will have to be confirmed for free: That's difficult when children don't have their own job and credit card.

Slashdot Top Deals

186,000 Miles per Second. It's not just a good idea. IT'S THE LAW.

Close