Protecting Kids Online Requires Action; Not Judicial Paralysis

In December, a federal judge in the Western District of Texas issued preliminary injunctions blocking enforcement of the Texas App Store Accountability Act, preventing the law from taking effect on January 1, 2026. The court concluded that the Act likely violates the First Amendment by imposing content-based restrictions on speech. The Texas Attorney General promptly filed a notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit.

As a father of three children navigating the digital world and an attorney, in my interpretation this ruling is wrong on its merits, and it only serves to delay deeply needed action to keep kids safer online. If anything, this should put pressure on representatives in both parties to come together and finally pass a bill to protect our kids, like the federal App Store Accountability Act.

The court's reasoning in the rule rests on a fundamental mischaracterization of what the Texas law actually does. The Act does not restrict speech. It does not ban content. It does not prohibit minors from accessing any particular app or platform. Rather, it establishes a procedural mechanism to ensure that parents are informed and involved when their children seek to download things from the web. Parents retain full discretion over their minor children to approve or deny any app they choose. Parental consent is not censorship.

The court found the law was not "narrowly tailored" because it applies to all apps regardless of content. But this breadth is precisely what makes the approach constitutionally sound. The Act does not single out disfavored speech or target particular viewpoints. It applies neutrally across the app ecosystem, requiring only that parents be part of the decision-making process for their minor children. If anything, the law's content-neutrality should weigh in its favor, not against it.

What I find particularly perplexing is the disproportionate weight being placed on this preliminary ruling. A preliminary injunction is not a final judgment on the merits. It reflects one judge's assessment of likelihood of success at an early stage of litigation. The Fifth Circuit may well reach a different conclusion, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's June 2025 decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, which upheld Texas's age-verification requirements for pornographic websites. That ruling suggests the judiciary is not categorically hostile to age-verification frameworks designed to protect minors.

Moreover, those who cite this case as evidence that app store accountability laws are constitutionally infirm should consider the alternative. In Congress, some have proposed the Parents Over Platforms Act (POPA), which takes a different approach. While POPA also involves app stores providing age signals to developers, it focuses its requirements only on "covered applications" - those that provide different experiences for minors and adults or are intended solely for adults. This creates significant loopholes: apps can avoid regulation by claiming they don't differentiate by age, and the law's narrower scope leaves many high-risk scenarios unaddressed. Additionally, by distributing enforcement responsibilities across both app stores and individual developers, POPA creates a more complex compliance landscape that may be harder to enforce consistently. Different standards for different platforms? That’s more suspect, and it makes it much easier for bad apps to circumvent scrutiny.

The App Store Accountability Act, by contrast, takes a more modest and defensible approach. It places verification obligations on app stores rather than on individual content providers. It minimizes data collection by consolidating verification in a single location. And it preserves parental authority rather than substituting governmental judgment for family decision-making.

Congress should not allow one preliminary injunction in one district court to paralyze federal action on an issue that affects millions of American families. The federal App Store Accountability Act represents a thoughtful, privacy-protective approach to ensuring that parents can fulfill their responsibilities in the digital age. It deserves to move forward.