On December 23, 2025, a federal judge issued an injunction against the enforcement of Texas’ App Store Accountability Act (SB 2420), which was set to take effect on January 1, 2026. This law aimed to impose stringent age verification and parental consent requirements on app stores and developers. The ruling followed a consolidated hearing held on December 16, where U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pitman evaluated arguments from the plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction.
The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) initially filed the lawsuit on October 16, 2025. The organization claimed that the law violated the First Amendment rights of users, app stores, and developers while also arguing that the law was unconstitutionally vague. In a parallel suit, two individual students and the advocacy group Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT) contended that the legislation infringed upon minors’ free speech rights.
In their analysis, Judge Pitman highlighted several problematic aspects of SB 2420. The law mandated that both app stores and developers implement and display an age rating system, shifting age verification responsibilities onto app stores. It also required parental consent before minors could download apps or make purchases. Additionally, the law stipulated that access to apps could be revoked if there were material changes to content ratings or functionality, necessitating further parental approval.
The Court determined that the law functioned as a content-based regulation, prompting a strict scrutiny standard. Judge Pitman concluded that the state failed to demonstrate a compelling interest in restricting minors’ access to the broad categories of speech affected by SB 2420. Furthermore, the law did not employ the least restrictive means to safeguard minors from harmful material. It was also criticized for being both under- and over-inclusive, as it did not prevent minors from accessing potentially harmful content on already downloaded apps while simultaneously limiting their participation in online discussions.
In addressing the vagueness of the law, Judge Pitman found two specific provisions problematic. The first involved the liability of app stores and developers for allegedly misrepresenting age ratings, while the second pertained to the requirement that developers notify users of significant changes to app content.
Following the ruling, Attorney General Ken Paxton promptly filed an appeal. Developments on this injunction are expected in the first quarter of 2026. Stakeholders should remain attentive to this case and monitor similar legislation in other states, including laws in Utah and Louisiana, scheduled to take effect in mid-2026, and California’s legislation set for January 1, 2027.
As the legal landscape surrounding age verification laws continues to evolve, the implications for app developers and users will be significant. The outcome of this case could set important precedents regarding digital rights and responsibilities in the technology sector.
