In today’s digital landscape, children are navigating a world of apps that are anything but childproof. From anonymous video chats to location-tracking games and financial platforms disguised as entertainment, the app ecosystem is riddled with risks that most parents never see coming. A child can download a payment app, use it for hours, delete it, and leave no trace.
Parents are told they’re in control. But the truth is, tech platforms have quietly rewritten the rules. They allow minors to enter contracts, share personal data, and interact with strangers…all without parental consent. And while companies like Apple and Google profit from this access, families are left scrambling to catch up.
But as policymakers rush to “fix” the problem, their solutions increasingly rely on digital identification, centralized data tracking, and mandatory verification systems that threaten to make every user, parent or child, traceable online.
What’s Actually Happening with Kids and Apps
The problem is real. Children and teens are using apps that:
- Bypass parental oversight through hidden downloads and auto-renewing subscriptions
- Expose minors to contracts they can’t legally understand or enforce
- Share sensitive data like location, contacts, and browsing history
- Enable anonymous interaction with strangers, often without content moderation
According to the Digital Childhood Alliance coalition, nearly 90% of teens use iPhones, yet Apple’s parental controls are buried under layers of menus and rarely enforced. The result: children are navigating a digital marketplace designed for adults, with few safeguards and even fewer consequences for the platforms profiting from their engagement.
This issue here is more than just about screen time for kids, it’s about contractual exposure, data exploitation, and unseen risks. And it’s why legislation like the App Store Accountability Act is gaining traction. But as we’ll see, the proposed “solution” may create new problems; ones that threaten constitutional rights, parental autonomy, and digital privacy. Lawmakers are right to see a crisis in digital childhood—but when the cure involves verifying and tracking every user, we’ve traded one danger for another.
The Legislative Response – App Store Accountability Act
In response to growing concerns about children’s access to apps and digital platforms, lawmakers have introduced a sweeping legislative proposal: the App Store Accountability Act. Framed as a parental rights and child safety measure, this bill has now appeared in both chambers of Congress and is being replicated in state legislatures across the country.
At the federal level, the bill was introduced as:
- H.R. 3149 by Rep. John James (R-MI), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee
- S.1586 by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), known for his advocacy on tech accountability and family sovereignty
The legislation mandates:
- Age verification for all users creating app store accounts
- Parental consent for minors to download apps or make in-app purchases
- Developer-assigned age ratings for all apps, with public explanations
- Penalties for noncompliance, including fines up to $10,000 per violation
But behind those seemingly straightforward requirements lies a framework for nationwide digital identity tracking, where every app download, purchase, and interaction could be logged and verified through age and identity data. Supporters claim the bill restores parental control in digital spaces, likening it to ID checks for alcohol or tobacco. But critics argue it’s a constitutional overreach that burdens families, developers, and platforms alike.
What makes this bill especially significant is its role as a model policy, crafted and promoted by the Digital Childhood Alliance, a coalition of over 100 advocacy organizations. Backed by groups like the Heritage Foundation, Family Policy Alliance, and National Center on Sexual Exploitation, the Alliance is pushing for uniform adoption of this framework at both federal and state levels.
Their messaging is clear: app stores have failed to protect children, and it’s time for lawmakers to step in. But as we’ll see in the next section, the Texas version of this bill—SB 2420—has sparked fierce opposition, lawsuits, and constitutional scrutiny.
Key Players Behind the Push
Among the most prominent backers of the Alliance are:
- Heritage Foundation – A leading conservative think tank that has endorsed the bill as a tool for restoring “digital sovereignty” to parents.
- Institute for Family Studies – Executive Director Michael Toscano has served as a public spokesperson for the Alliance’s legislative goals.
- Family Policy Alliance – Known for supporting parental rights legislation across multiple states.
- National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) – Advocates for tech regulation to combat online exploitation.
These groups have joined forces to promote the App Store Accountability Act as a model policy, with the goal of passing uniform legislation across states and at the federal level. Their messaging is emotionally resonant and politically strategic: they frame the bill as a digital equivalent of age-restricted sales for alcohol or tobacco, and claim it’s a necessary correction to Big Tech’s failure to protect children.
“App stores treat children like virtual adults… Parents, not tech companies, should have the final say over their child’s app usage.” —Heritage Foundation analyst Annie Chestnut Tutor
The Alliance’s strategy hinges on a few key narratives:
- Parental empowerment: Reclaiming control from tech platforms
- Child safety: Preventing exposure to inappropriate content and exploitation
- Big Tech accountability: Forcing platforms to comply with age verification and consent protocols
But beneath the surface, critics argue that this coalition is advancing a surveillance-adjacent framework that risks constitutional violations and privacy erosion. Texas’s version of the bill, SB 2420, passed in spring of 2025, has already triggered lawsuits and legal challenges from across the ideological spectrum.
Texas SB 2420 – A Case Study in Overreach
In spring 2025, Texas became the first state to fully adopt the App Store Accountability framework, passing Senate Bill 2420 with overwhelming bipartisan support. Authored by Senator Angela Paxton and carried in the House by Rep. Caroline Fairly, the bill was championed as part of the “Stop Sexualizing Texas’ Kids” initiative, a broader campaign aimed at curbing online exploitation and reinforcing parental rights.
But beneath the protective rhetoric, SB 2420 introduced a sweeping regulatory regime that raised immediate constitutional red flags.
What the Law Actually Does
SB 2420 mandates:
- Age verification for every app store user, using “commercially reasonable” methods
- Parental consent for each individual app download or in-app purchase by minors
- Developer duties to assign detailed age ratings and notify app stores of any functional changes
- Data sharing between app stores and developers regarding user age and consent status
The law also prohibits blanket permissions, meaning parents must approve each app individually, even for educational or nonprofit tools. Exceptions are narrowly defined, such as crisis hotlines or standardized testing apps. To function, this system requires continuous identity verification tied to personal or biometric data, a digital infrastructure that could easily evolve into a de facto national ID system.
Violations are treated as deceptive trade practices, with penalties up to $10,000 per incident.
Immediate Backlash
The bill’s passage triggered swift legal challenges. Advocacy groups, constitutional scholars, and tech industry leaders warned that SB 2420:
- Compels speech by forcing developers to justify age ratings to the state
- Restricts access to lawful content based on age, even for older teens
- Invades privacy by requiring identity verification and data sharing without clear guardrails
The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) filed a federal lawsuit, arguing the law violates the First Amendment and imposes disproportionate burdens on app stores, developers, and families. Their complaint highlights the risk of minors being locked out of digital services entirely if parental consent isn’t obtained or technically feasible.
Meanwhile, Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT), backed by FIRE, launched a separate suit focused on youth speech rights and anonymity. A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction for the named plaintiffs, signaling serious constitutional concerns.
Texas’s law is a highly coordinated blueprint that is going to spread across the country like wildfire. Its passage is already influencing other states and energizing federal efforts to codify similar mandates. And while the intent may be child protection, the execution raises profound questions about who controls digital access, how consent is defined, and whether constitutional rights apply online for minors and adults alike.
The Opposition – Constitutional and Practical Concerns
While SB 2420 was marketed as a parental rights victory, its passage triggered a wave of opposition from constitutional scholars, privacy advocates, and tech industry leaders. These critics have a shared concern that the law sacrifices free speech, privacy, and parental autonomy in the name of protection.
FIRE Lawsuit: SEAT v. Paxton
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), known for defending First Amendment rights across the political spectrum, filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT) and two high school students. Their complaint argues that SB 2420:
- Restricts access to lawful speech by requiring identity verification for app downloads
- Compels disclosure of personal information, undermining anonymity
- Treats all digital expression as suspect, regardless of content
A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction for the named plaintiffs, signaling that the law likely violates the First Amendment. FIRE’s involvement underscores that this isn’t just a fringe concern but a constitutional crisis.
R Street Institute: Surveillance Creep and Parental Disempowerment
The R Street Institute, a free-market think tank, issued a detailed letter urging Governor Abbott to veto SB 2420. Their critique is surgical:
- The bill forces Texans to hand over sensitive personal data, including government IDs, just to download apps
- It creates cybersecurity risks by incentivizing companies to store verification data for compliance
- It burdens parents, requiring them to approve every app individually—even calculators and educational tools
R Street’s Josh Withrow warned:
“Instead of empowering parents, SB 2420 merely imposes a government mandate to replicate protections that are already easily available to them” and that “it erects barriers to accessing speech and content for all mobile device users and creates novel data privacy and security problems.”
CCIA Lawsuit: Compelled Speech and Developer Burdens
The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), representing major tech firms, filed a separate lawsuit challenging SB 2420’s impact on app stores and developers. Their complaint highlights:
- Compelled speech: Developers must justify age ratings to the state
- Disproportionate burdens: Small developers face compliance costs that could drive them out of Texas
- Parental gatekeeping mandates: Minors are blocked from accessing lawful content unless linked to a verified parent
CCIA’s litigation director Stephanie Joyce stated:
“This law violates the First Amendment by restricting app stores from offering lawful content, preventing users from seeing that content, and compelling app developers to speak of their offerings in a way pleasing to the state.”
Despite their differences, FIRE, R Street, and CCIA converge on several key points:
- SB 2420 is overbroad and applies to all apps, not just those with harmful content
- It undermines family discretion, replacing parental judgment with state mandates
- It creates new risks, from data breaches to censorship, without solving the core problem
These critiques reveal a deeper truth: protecting children online requires nuance, and when laws like SB 2420 ignore that, they threaten the very freedoms they claim to defend.
The Broader Pattern – Digital ID by Another Name
Texas’s SB 2420 follows a growing national trend; Digital ID rebranded as online safety. Its precursor, the SCOPE Act (signed in 2024 and effective that September), pioneered aggressive age verification requirements that opened the door to identity tracking.
Unlike SB 2420, which targets app stores, the SCOPE Act applies to websites, requiring them to collect government IDs or biometric data to verify whether users are 18 or older before accessing lawful content. It effectively bans anonymous browsing for adults and blocks minors from accessing advocacy, mental health, and educational resources unless they can prove age or obtain parental permission.
Critics argue this law:
- Treats adults like children, requiring ID to view constitutionally protected speech
- Blocks minors from accessing help, including mental health resources and advocacy campaigns
- Creates a chilling effect on anonymous expression and youth engagement
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) filed a federal lawsuit against the SCOPE Act, calling it a “Frankenstein’s monster” of internet speech control—combining the worst elements of similar laws in California, Utah, and Arkansas.
A National Trend Toward Digital Gatekeeping
Across the country, states are experimenting with age-verification mandates:
- Utah passed a law requiring app stores to share age data with developers—without parental consent
- Louisiana and Virginia have introduced biometric ID requirements for accessing online content
- California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code was blocked in court for violating the First Amendment
These laws often start with good intentions—protecting children from exploitation or harmful content—but they quickly evolve into surveillance frameworks that:
- Compel speech from developers
- Restrict access to lawful information
- Expose sensitive data to third parties
Even Google, a frequent target of tech regulation, has warned that these bills “introduce new risks to the privacy of minors” and “dictate how parents supervise their kids.” Their alternative proposal emphasizes privacy-preserving age signals, centralized parental dashboards, and limited data sharing only with consent.
The Constitutional Cost
The deeper concern isn’t just technical, it’s philosophical. These laws redefine digital access as a privilege granted by the state, not a right protected by the Constitution. They also redefine parental rights, turning what should be a family decision into a government-enforced process of verification and permission. They assume that safety requires surveillance, and that parental empowerment must come through government mandates.
But as FIRE, R Street, CCIA, and others have argued, true empowerment means choice, not coercion. And when legislation treats every app as a threat, every teen as a liability, and every parent as a gatekeeper, it doesn’t protect families, it controls them.
The Ideological Fault Line
At first glance, the App Store Accountability Act and its state-level counterparts appear to be conservative victories, legislation framed around parental rights, child safety, and Big Tech accountability. But beneath the surface, a growing number of liberty-minded conservatives are sounding the alarm. They argue that these bills don’t empower families, rather they entangle them in surveillance frameworks and constitutional overreach.
When “Parental Rights” Become State Mandates
The phrase “parental rights” has become a rallying cry in statehouses across the country. But as laws like SB 2420 and the federal App Store Accountability Act gain traction, it’s worth asking: whose rights are actually being protected?
These bills don’t simply empower parents; they compel them to participate in a government-defined system of digital gatekeeping. They don’t offer tools; they impose mandates. And they don’t trust families to make decisions; they require them to seek permission.
This is the paradox: legislation framed as a defense of family sovereignty is being used to centralize control, override discretion, and force compliance with a one-size-fits-all model. Even among conservatives, this has sparked a quiet but growing divide—between those who see government as a guardian of values, and those who see it as a threat to liberty.
The question isn’t whether we protect children. It’s how and who decides.
What Parents Should Do Next
This isn’t just about one bill in Texas or a proposal in Congress. It’s about a growing movement to define “digital parenting”, from a personal responsibility to a state-mandated system.
If you’re a parent, advocate, or citizen concerned about privacy, speech, and family sovereignty, here’s what you can do:
Scrutinize the Legislation
- Read the full text of bills like SB 2420, the SCOPE Act, and the federal App Store Accountability Act
- Look for vague language around “age verification,” “consent,” and “developer duties”—these are often where constitutional issues hide
Ask the Right Questions
- Who decides what’s “appropriate” for your child?
- Who controls the data collected during verification?
- What happens when consent isn’t technically feasible?
Advocate for Smarter Solutions
- Support opt-in parental tools, not blanket mandates
- Push for privacy-preserving frameworks like Google’s age signal model
- Demand transparency from advocacy groups pushing these bills—especially those claiming to speak for parents
Speak Up
- Contact your legislators and ask where they stand on these bills
- Share this information with other parents, educators, and local leaders
- Don’t let “parental rights” be redefined as government control
The App Store Accountability Act may promise accountability, but what it really delivers is a step closer to a monitored, permission-based internet. Parental rights should never come with a login.
Empowerment Without Coercion
Protecting children online is essential. But we must reject the false choice between safety and liberty. Real empowerment means giving families tools—not mandates. It means trusting parents—not deputizing them. And it means defending constitutional rights—even when the issue feels urgent.
The stakes are high. The language is persuasive. But the consequences are real.
Let’s protect kids and protect freedom.
Support Our Mission
Conservative Ladies of America is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization committed to protecting parental rights, constitutional liberty, and truth in public policy. We rely on the generous support of concerned citizens like you to continue exposing overreach, equipping families, and defending freedom at every level of government.
If this work matters to you, please consider making a donation today. Every dollar helps us educate, mobilize, and hold the line.