ACLJ Defends Families and the First Amendment as States Rally Behind App Store Accountability

The ACLJ has just filed a major amicus brief in Computer & Communications Industry Association v. Paxton, now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. At stake is a transformational effort – already gaining traction across the country – to restore parental authority in the digital age through laws like the Texas App Store Accountability Act (SB 2420).

This case is not just about one state. It reflects a growing national movement. Legislatures across the country are recognizing what parents already know: The modern app ecosystem has fundamentally reshaped childhood, often with devastating consequences. And increasingly, states are stepping in – not to censor speech – but to ensure that parents, not Big Tech, remain the primary decision-makers in their children’s lives.

A Growing Movement To Protect Families

The momentum behind app store accountability laws is undeniable. State lawmakers are responding to a mounting body of evidence linking unregulated app access to serious harms: rising rates of anxiety, depression, addiction, and even suicidal ideation among children and teens. The U.S. Surgeon General has sounded the alarm, warning that social media and digital platforms pose a profound risk to youth mental health.

But instead of imposing sweeping content bans or heavy-handed censorship, these new laws take a different – and constitutionally sound – approach. They focus on the gatekeepers: app stores. By requiring age verification and parental consent for minors to download apps or make in-app purchases, these laws restore a commonsense safeguard that technology has eroded.

In doing so, states are embracing a principle as old as the Constitution itself: parents – not corporations or bureaucrats – have the fundamental right and responsibility to raise their children.

Empowering Parents, Not Government

One of the central strengths of Texas’s SB 2420 – and similar laws emerging nationwide – is that they do not substitute the judgment of the state for that of parents. Instead, they empower families.

For over a century, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Constitution protects the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. From Meyer v. Nebraska to Pierce v. Society of Sisters to Troxel v. Granville, the Court has consistently recognized that “the child is not a mere creature of the State.”

SB 2420 fits squarely within that tradition. It does not tell parents what apps their children may use. It does not ban content. It does not impose government preferences. Instead, it ensures that parents actually have a say – by requiring their consent before a minor enters into the digital marketplace.

That distinction is critical. Unlike laws struck down in cases like Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, which attempted to override parental judgment, SB 2420 reinforces it. It channels decision-making authority where it belongs: in the home.

Regulating Commerce – Not Speech

Critics of these laws have tried to frame them as First Amendment violations. But that argument misunderstands both the statutes and longstanding constitutional doctrine.

SB 2420 does not regulate speech. It regulates commercial transactions involving minors.

When a child downloads an app, they are not simply accessing content – they are entering into a binding legal relationship. They agree to the terms of service, consent to data collection, and often engage in financial transactions through in-app purchases. These are contracts, and for centuries, the law has treated minors differently in this context.

States have always had broad authority to limit minors’ ability to contract. Children cannot purchase alcohol or tobacco. They cannot enter binding financial agreements. They cannot make major medical decisions without parental involvement. These rules have never been understood as violations of free speech.

The same principle applies here. SB 2420 simply extends well-established safeguards into the digital marketplace – ensuring that minors cannot enter into complex, often exploitative commercial relationships without parental oversight.

No Burden on Adults

Equally important, these laws impose no meaningful burden on adults.

Age verification is already a routine part of modern life. Americans verify their identity to open bank accounts, start jobs, purchase age-restricted products, and access countless services. App stores themselves already collect much of this information during account creation.

SB 2420 requires only “commercially reasonable” verification methods, leaving ample flexibility for privacy-protective solutions. And critically, adult users retain full, unrestricted access to apps and content.

There is no censorship. No speech restriction. No barrier to lawful expression.

A Carefully Tailored, Constitutional Solution

Perhaps most importantly, laws like SB 2420 are carefully crafted to meet constitutional requirements.

The Supreme Court has made clear that while the government cannot broadly suppress speech, it can enact narrowly tailored measures to protect children – especially when those measures support parental authority. In Ginsberg v. New York, the Court upheld age-based restrictions precisely because they aided parents in fulfilling their responsibilities.

That is exactly what SB 2420 does. It advances compelling state interests – protecting children from exploitation, addiction, and harm – while using the least restrictive means available: empowering parents.

Even in cases where the Court has struck down internet regulations, it has emphasized that targeted, properly designed protections remain permissible. SB 2420 answers that call.

The Bottom Line

The ACLJ’s amicus brief makes one thing clear: This case is about more than technology. It is about who decides – parents or platforms.

App store accountability laws represent a constitutional, commonsense response to a rapidly evolving digital landscape. They respect the First Amendment. They respect federalism. And most importantly, they respect families.

As more states take up this cause, the Fifth Circuit now has an opportunity to affirm what the Constitution already guarantees: that parents – not Big Tech – have the final say in their children’s lives.