Amicus Curiae Brief — Computer & Communications Industry Association, Applicant v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas
Supreme Court briefJun 18, 2026
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Nos. 25A1389, 25A1390
In the
Supreme Court of the United States
STUDENTS ENGAGED IN ADVANCING TEXAS, et al.,
Applicants,
v.
KEN PAXTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS,
Respondent.
COMPUTER & COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION,
Applicant,
v.
KEN PAXTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS,
Respondent.
On Applications to the Honorable Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States and Circuit Justice for the Fifth Circuit
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE THE INSTITUTE FOR
FAMILY STUDIES IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
Joel L. Thayer
Counsel of Record
Thayer, PLLC
1255 Union Street NE, Seventh Floor
Washington, DC 20002
(760) 668-0934
jthayer@thayer.tech
Attorney for Amicus Curiae
393999
(800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
IDENTITY OF AMICUS, INTEREST IN THIS MATTER, AND SOURCE OF
AUTHORITY TO FILE ....................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................... 1
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................. 3
I.
Protecting Against Mobile Apps’s Erosion of Parental Authority is in the
Public Interest, Especially Given That Current Federal Laws Either
Exacerbate the Problem or Are Ineffective ........................................................ 3
II.
Applicants Can Not Show That They Will Be Irreparably Harmed by SB
2420 Because Age Verification is a Modest Burden Given the
Technological Advancements............................................................................ 11
III.
S.B. 2420 Is Likely Constitutional Because Preserving Parental
Authority is a Compelling Government Interest ............................................. 15
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 21
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
Anderson v. TikTok,
116 F.4th 180 (3rd Cir. 2024) ......................................................................... 6, 7
Bellotti v. Baird,
443 U.S. 622 (1979) ..................................................................................... 11, 18
Brown, et al. v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n, et al.,
564 U.S. 786 (2011) ...................................................................................... 16-19
Computer & Communications Industry Ass’n v. Paxton,
814 F.Supp.3d 787 (W.D. Tex. 2025) ................................................................ 15
Erznoznik v. Jacksonville,
422 U.S. 205 (1975) ........................................................................................... 18
Force v. Facebook, Inc.,
934 F.3d 53 (2nd Cir. 2019) ................................................................................ 6
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton,
606 U.S. 461 (2025) ..................................................................... 3, 12, 14, 20, 21
Ginsberg v. New York,
390 U.S. 629 (1968) ..................................................................................... 18, 19
Gonzalez v. Google, LLC,
2 F.4th 871 (9th Cir. 2021) ................................................................................. 6
Nken v. Holder,
556 U.S. 418 (2009) ......................................................................................... 1, 2
Pierce v. Society of Sisters,
268 U.S. 510 (1925) ........................................................................................... 18
Roper v. Simmons,
543 U.S. 551 (2005) ...................................................................................... 18-19
U.S. v. Musical.ly,
2019 WL 134086 (C.D. Cal. 2019) ...................................................................... 7
Washington v. Glucksberg,
521 U.S. 702 (1997) ........................................................................................... 17
Wisconsin v. Yoder,
406 U.S. 205 (1972) ..................................................................................... 17, 18
iii
Constitutional Provisions
U.S. Const. amend. I .............................................................................. 2, 15, 17, 19, 20
Statutes
Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 312 .................................. 7
S.B. 2420, Texas App Store Accountability Act ................................. 2, 3, 11, 13-15, 19
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ......................................................... 6
Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 121.021(a) (West 2026) ............................................. 13
Other Authorities
Age Verification Providers Ass’n as Amicus Curiae at 30, Free Speech Coalition
v. Paxton, 606 U.S. 461 (2025) (No. 23-1122).............................................. 12-13
Bobby Allyn, et al., TikTok Executives Know About App’s Effect on Teens,
Lawsuit Documents Allege, NPR (Oct. 11, 2024) ............................................... 6
Monica Anderson, How Parents Feel – and Manage – Their Teens’ Online
Behavior and Screen Time, Per Research Center (Mar. 22, 2019)................. 4-5
Apple, Helping Protect Kids Online, White Paper (2025) .......................................... 14
Brooke Auxier, et al., Parenting Children in the Age of Screens, Pew Research
Center (Jul. 28, 2020).......................................................................................... 4
Ashley Belanger, After Child’s Trauma, Chatbot Maker Allegedly Forced Mom
to Aribration for $100 Payout, ArsTechnica (Sep. 17, 2025) ............................. 9
Bible, Apple App Store (May 21, 2026) ......................................................................... 9
Andy Brownell, Rochester Man Admits to Sex Assault of Girl He Met on
Snapchat, KROC-AM News (Jan. 7, 2025) ........................................................ 8
CapitalOne Shopping, Apple Pay Statistics, Research (Jan. 28, 2026) ..................... 14
Digital Childhood Institute, Complaint to the Federal Trade Comm’n
(Aug. 19, 2025) ................................................................................................ 7, 8
John Ehrett & Clare Morell, Age Verification: Policy Ideas for States, Institute
for Family Studies (Jun. 13, 2023) ................................................................... 13
Family IT Guy, iPhone Set Up for Kids: A Step-by-Step Guide .................................. 5
Michael Marks, Texas Parents Sue After AI Chatbots Suggests Self-Harm to
Child, Texas Public Radio (Dec. 16, 2024) ......................................................... 8
iv
Coleen McClain, et al., How Parents Manage Screen Time for Kids, Pew
Research Center (Oct. 8, 2025) ........................................................................... 4
Clare Morell, Making Smartphones and App Stores Safe for Kids, Ethics and
Public Policy Center & Institute for Family Studies (Nov. 6, 2023) ......... 13, 14
Clare Morell, The Tech Exit, Forum Books (2025) ....................................................... 9
Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (1st ed.
1992) .................................................................................................................. 11
Protect Young Eyes, The Complete Guide to Setting up an iPhone or iPad for
Your Child, Report (May 14, 2026) .................................................................... 5
Shelby County, Alabama, Apps Child Predators Use, Presentation (last visited
May 21, 2026) ...................................................................................................... 8
Shenzhen Qianhai Happy Tour Inc., Privacy Policy (updated Apr. 14, 2026) .......... 10
Students Engaged in Advancing Texas, et al. v. Paxton, Case Nos. 25-51073 &
26-50001, Published Order, Doc. No. 92-1 *10 (Jun. 4, 2026) ........................... 4
The Weather Channel – Radar, Apple App Store (last visited May 21, 2026)...... 9, 10
Transcript of Oral Argument at 9-10, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, No. 231122 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2025) .................................................................................. 12
Aaron Tiley, Apple’s App Store Puts Kids a Click Away from a Slew of
Inappropriate Apps, the Wall Street Journal (Dec. 22, 2024) ........................... 6
Michael Toscano, et al., High Tech, Low Play: The Life of American Children,
Institute for Family Studies (2026) .................................................................... 5
U.S. Dep’t. Homeland Security, Data Security Business Advisory, Report (last
visited May 21, 2026) ........................................................................................ 10
Wearfit Pro Privacy Statements, Privacy Policy (updated Aug. 4, 2023) ................. 10
YouVersion Bible App, Google Play (last visited May 21, 2026) ................................. 9
1
IDENTITY OF AMICUS, INTEREST IN THIS MATTER,
AND SOURCE OF AUTHORITY TO FILE1
The Institute for Family Studies is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit whose mission is to
strengthen marriage and family life and advance the welfare of children through
research and public engagement. Known for its objective and incisive studies that
attract attention and respect from across the ideological spectrum, the Institute’s
programs and platforms focus on marriage, fertility, child well-being, family
formation, parenting, and the role of technology in family life. In particular, its
Family First Technology Initiative specializes in researching the effects of digital
technology on the wellbeing of families and children, studying the attitudes of
families, parents, voters, and other demographics towards digital technology, and
developing constitutional technology policy that strengthens the family. Amicus
houses some of the nation’s leading experts in family and technology policy.
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
To grant Applicants’ application, the Court must find that ‘(1) “the stay
applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits,” Nken
v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009); (2) “the applicant will be irreparably injured
absent a stay,” id.; (3) that the “issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other
1 Amicus certify that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in
part, and no such counsel or party made a monetary contribution intended to fund
the preparation or submission of this brief. No persons other than the amici or their
counsel made any monetary contribution to this brief’s preparation or submission.
2
parties interested in the proceeding,” id.; and (4) grating their application is where
“the public interest lies.’” Id.
Although we believe Applicants have failed to meet their burden on all factors,
this brief will focus on Applicants’ deficient showing of the first, second, and fourth
factors.
Central to the District Court’s analysis of and decision to preliminary enjoin
S.B. 2420, the App Store Accountability Act, is the assumption that speech to minors
(and minors’ speech to others) that bypasses their parents or legal guardians is a
protected class of speech under the First Amendment.
However, this presupposition does not align with an originalist interpretation
of the First Amendment or the Supreme Court’s historic precedent on the matter. In
its original context, as understood by the Founders, the First Amendment was never
intended to grant individuals or minors a right to speech that bypasses parents, i.e.,
abrogate parental authority. Likewise, while the Court has recognized that children
enjoy some meaningful First Amendment protections with respect to speech, they
have historically recognized that states can pass laws that aid parents and others
responsible for the well-being of children, such as teachers, in carrying out their
rightful duties and responsibilities to children. The Court fails to grapple with the
Supreme Court’s treatment of speech to minors and minors’ speech, and its general
support of laws that support parental authority and parental rights.
Additionally, the District Court has failed to consider the context and evolution
of contemporary digital technology and its effects on parental authority, e.g., parent’s
3
lack of ability to effectively safeguard their kids. As the Supreme Court most recently
maintained in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, digital technology has rapidly evolved
in the last 20 years, posing serious challenges to the ability of parents to ensure the
well-being of their children. And given that the majority of minors own or use
smartphones or tablets, mobile apps especially present unique challenges, as they
lack adequate parental controls to mitigate harms to minors, are inaccurately agerated, and involve complex contract agreements (i.e., terms of services and privacy
policies) and are not simply reducible to “content” (contrary to the District Court’s
analysis).
Insofar as these modern digital technologies undermine parental authority,
Texas is within its right to aid and strengthen parents in carrying out their
responsibilities to their children through the App Store Accountability Act.
ARGUMENT
I.
Protecting Against Mobile Apps’s Erosion of Parental Authority is
in the Public Interest, Especially Given That Current Federal Laws
Either Exacerbate the Problem or Are Ineffective
The lower court comparing an app store to a bookstore is a false analogy.
Indeed, no bookstore requires their patrons to sign a term of service agreement and
cede privacy rights over to it before entering the store. Nor is there a store that
requires you to sign publishers’ terms of service when purchasing one of their
published works.
The Fifth Circuit is absolutely correct in its assessment that “[t]he need to
protect children is intensified in the digital world, where app stores have violated
4
existing consumer protection and child privacy laws for years, despite a federal
consent decree.” Students Engaged in Advancing Texas, et al. v. Paxton, Case Nos.
25-51073 & 26-50001, Published Order, Doc. No. 92-1 *10 (Jun. 4, 2026) (“5th Circuit
Order”). Indeed, mobile app stores have degraded the integrity of parental authority
by allowing children to download any app they want surreptitiously. Mobile apps
present new and unique challenges for parents today. For years, parents have
expressed concern and exhaustion when it comes to digital devices and kids.
According to a 2020 Pew report, 66% of parents of one or more children under the age
of 18 believe that parenting is harder today than 20 years ago, citing technology in
general, and social media in particular, as the chief cause. Brooke Auxier, et al.,
Parenting Children in the Age of Screens, Pew Research Center (Jul. 28, 2020),
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/07/28/parenting-children-in-the-age-ofscreens/. Another more recent Pew study found that, as of 2025, 86% of parents
consider managing their child’s screen time a priority when it comes to raising their
kids. Coleen McClain, et al., How Parents Manage Screen Time for Kids, Pew Research
Center
(Oct.
8,
2025),
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/10/08/how-
parents-manage-screen-time-for-kids/. Nevertheless, despite parent’s efforts to
monitor and limit their teen’s digital activity, however, most remain worried about
the harmful impacts of digital technology on their kids’ social skills, academic
performance, or extracurriculars. Monica Anderson, How Parents Feel – and Manage
– Their Teens’ Online Behavior and Screen Time, Per Research Center (Mar. 22,
5
2019), https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/03/22/how-parents-feel-aboutand-manage-their-teens-online-behavior-and-screen-time/.
According to a May 2026 report by our Institute (based on a survey of almost
24,000 U.S. parents of over 40,000 children, including 2,600 teenagers), 60% of 6year-olds are using tablets. Michael Toscano, et al., High Tech, Low Play: The Life of
American Children, Institute for Family Studies (2026), https://ifstudies.org/reportbrief/high-tech-low-play-the-life-of-american-children. By age 11, 60% of minors own
smartphones, with almost 90% of them owning a smartphone by 16. Id. The report
also found that the majority of them also use devices without parental controls. Id.
At most, for children 10 and older, only 45% of parents require a password for app
store purchase, 40% of parents set content restrictions, and 33% of parents set time
limits on device usage, with the percentage of parents who use each of these
restrictions decreasing as the child gets older.
While parental controls may be widely underutilized, even those who may
be trying their best to protect their kids are still at a loss. For one, setting up
parental controls can be complex, often involving countless steps. See Protect
Young Eyes, The Complete Guide to Setting up an iPhone or iPad for Your Child,
Report
(May
14,
2026),
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m1nD5e-N5o-
cNbuyH1C8pMhv9ttaxe96S0UR5d1fQFM/mobilebasic; see also, Family IT Guy,
iPhone Set Up for Kids: A Step-by-Step Guide, https://www.familyitguy.com/iphonemasterclass. Secondly, the controls parents are offered have routinely been found to
be ineffective at protecting kids. For example, TikTok was found to have released a
6
tool to reduce screen time that it knew was ineffective at reducing users’ actual
time spent on the app. See Bobby Allyn, et al., TikTok Executives Know About
App’s Effect on Teens, Lawsuit Documents Allege, NPR (Oct. 11, 2024),
https://www.npr.org/2024/10/11/g-s1-27676/tiktok-redacted-documents-in-teensafety-lawsuit-revealed. Lastly, even if parents use parental controls, including those
offered by Apple’s App Store, countless apps are inaccurately rated. According to a
Wall Street Journal investigative report, researchers found that over a quarter of
apps tested had inaccurate age-ratings, based on the actual in-app experience. Aaron
Tiley, Apple’s App Store Puts Kids a Click Away from a Slew of Inappropriate Apps,
the Wall Street Journal (Dec. 22, 2024), https://www.wsj.com/tech/apples-app-storeputs-kids-a-click-away-from-a-slew-of-inappropriate-apps-dfde01d5.
Current laws have either made matters worse or are unhelpful in ensuring
parents can protect their children online. As to the former, Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act continues to grant sweeping immunities to online
service providers, e.g., Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d 53, 65-67 (2nd Cir. 2019)
(claiming to not be liable for hosting Hamas Facebook pages because of its interactive
computer services status); Gonzalez v. Google, LLC, 2 F.4th 871 (9th Cir. 2021)
(claiming to not be liable for its YouTube hosting terrorist propaganda because of its
interactive computer services status), to thwart any liability for the harms their
platforms cause children. Anderson v. TikTok, 116 F.4th 180, 185 (3rd Cir. 2024)
(Matey, J. concurring). Armed with these protections, Third Circuit Judge Paul
Matey poignantly stated that Big Tech “[s]muggles constitutional conceptions of a
7
‘free trade in ideas’ into a digital cauldron of illicit loves’ that leap and boil with no
oversight, no accountability, no remedy.” Id.
Worse, we have well-intended, but ultimately toothless, child safety laws, like
the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) which is easily circumvented
by the fact that the law does not require age verification while courts require
plaintiffs to show “actual knowledge” that a child is on a platform. U.S. v. Musical.ly,
2019 WL 134086 at 4-5 (C.D. Cal. 2019); Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule,
16 C.F.R. Part 312.
Thus, in the digital age, parental authority has rapidly eroded and floundered
as the quantity of information and the number of digital avenues by which users and
their data can be accessed have multiplied and outpaced the creation of tools or
policies needed to effectively manage such information or access. The powerlessness
of parents in the face of complex technologies that are rapidly changing and whose
workings remain opaque marks a new era of family life not experienced by previous
generations of parents or children.
This is especially true when it comes to mobile apps. As a 2025 Federal
Trade Commission complaint against Apple has outlined, it is estimated that 90%
of smartphone internet usage today occurs through mobile apps. Digital Childhood
Institute, Complaint to the Federal Trade Comm’n at p.7 (Aug. 19, 2025),
www.digitalchildhoodinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/FTC-ComplaintAgainst-Apple_25.pdf (“DCA FTC Complaint”). Despite the District Court’s
categorization of mobile apps as content not unlike the content accessed by means of
8
the internet, their usage involves more than simply access to and consumption of
content (i.e., speech). Prior to downloading or using any app, users agree to a contract,
i.e., terms of service and privacy policy agreements, which outlines the terms and
rights of users as well as what personal data can be accessed, including photos,
contact lists, exact locations, as well as microphone and camera use. Id. at 12.
Despite the fact that children are generally acknowledged within contract law
as lacking the maturity and technical knowledge to understand such contracts or
their potential risks, app developers have been permitted to contract with minors
without parental involvement or consent. In many cases, an app’s access to such
personal data compounds risks to child well-being. For example, mobile apps make
it easier for predators to prey on children. Shelby County, Alabama, Apps Child
Predators
Use,
Presentation
(last
visited
May
21,
2026),
https://www.shelbyal.com/DocumentCenter/View/1503/Apps-to-Know-About?bidId=.
In one case, a 13-year-old Minnesota girl was sexually assaulted by a man almost
four times her age, who found her through her SnapChat location. Andy Brownell,
Rochester Man Admits to Sex Assault of Girl He Met on Snapchat, KROC-AM News
(Jan. 7, 2025), https://krocnews.com/rochester-man-admits-raping-girl-he-contactedthrough-snapchat/.
Some companies, like Character.AI, have tried to enforce these contracts
against minors. Michael Marks, Texas Parents Sue After AI Chatbots Suggests SelfHarm to Child, Texas Public Radio (Dec. 16, 2024), https://www.tpr.org/technologyentrepreneurship/2024-12-16/texas-parents-sue-after-ai-chatbot-suggests-self-harm-
9
to-child. A Texas mother’s son who, after physically maiming himself at the chatbot’s
behest, was only entitled to 100 dollars in damages—as expressly outlined in the
company’s terms of services. Ashley Belanger, After Child’s Trauma, Chatbot Maker
Allegedly Forced Mom to Aribration for $100 Payout, ArsTechnica (Sep. 17, 2025),
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/09/after-childs-trauma-chatbot-makerallegedly-forced-mom-to-arbitration-for-100-payout/.
However, the harms enabled by free-flowing access to apps offered in app
stores are not limited to those well-known products. Indeed, seemingly innocuous
apps, too, have detrimental effects on child safety. For instance, YouVersion’s
Bible app gave parents a false sense of security that the app was only outlining
bible verses. However, predators were using the app’s “community features” to
engage directly with minors. Clare Morell, The Tech Exit, Forum Books, pg. 31
(2025). The app is still available on both Apple and Google app stores. YouVersion
Bible
App,
Play
(last
visited
May
21,
2026),
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sirma.mobile.bible.android&hl=en_US;
Bible, Apple App Store (May 21, 2026), https://apps.apple.com/us/app/bible/id282935706.
Even weather apps impose onerous terms and broad allowances to track their
users. Take the Weather Channel’s app by way of example. According to the App
Store, the app “track[s] [users] across apps and websites owned by other companies.”
The Weather Channel – Radar, Apple App Store (last visited May 21, 2026),
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/the-weather-channel-radar/id295646461.
It
also
10
collects data “linked to your identity,” which include, but are not limited to,
purchases, contact information, search history, location, and user content. Id.
Children’s privacy and safety are at risk in other ways, too. Many apps on Apple’s
App Store disclose that they share sensitive data with foreign adversaries such as China,
potentially allowing a child’s information to be sent abroad via app stores without
any parental awareness. E.g., Shenzhen Qianhai Happy Tour Inc., Privacy Policy
(updated Apr. 14, 2026), https://privacy.biggerlens.cn/app/privacy?name=knockoutgoogle&os=android&language=en (saying in its privacy policy, user information is
stored in China); see also Wearfit Pro Privacy Statements, Privacy Policy (updated
Aug.
4,
2023),
https://h5.iwhop.com/login/privacy_policy/privacy_policy_en.html
(hosting China-based wellness app Wearfit Pro that claims to access data from
Apple’s HealthKit and openly discloses that the “data will be stored in the territory
of the People’s Republic of China.”). Worse, most parents are likely not aware
that Article 7 of China’s National Intelligence Law of 2017 creates “a legal
obligation for those entities to turn over data collected abroad and domestically to
the” Chinese government. U.S. Dep’t. Homeland Security, Data Security Business
Advisory,
Report
(last
visited
May
21,
2026),
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/20_1222_data-security-businessadvisory.pdf. Such breaches of privacy put children at serious risk of being tracked
and harmed by foreign adversaries without so much as notifying parents.
These conditions confirm what media critic and philosopher Neil Postman
observed back in the 1990s: “A family that does not or cannot control the information
11
environment of its children is barely a family at all.” Neil Postman, Technopoly: The
Surrender of Culture to Technology (1st ed. 1992). Or, to put it in the language of the
courts, if parental authority is one of the “basic presuppositions” of individual liberty,
Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622, 639 (1979), then its rapid erosion in the digital age is
a matter of grave concern for elected and appointed officials concerned about
Americans’ freedom and flourishing.
Without S.B. 2420, kids are able to access all of these apps without any
parental review or approval and Apple and Google can continue to provide parents a
false sense of security with their faulty app ratings system.
Thus, we agree with the Fifth Circuit’s conclusion that “[t]he balance of
equities and public interest are clearcut in Texas’s favor.” 5th Circuit Order *10.
II.
Applicants Can Not Show That They Will Be Irreparably Harmed
by SB 2420 Because Age Verification is a Modest Burden Given the
Technological Advancements
In recent years, the Supreme Court has begun to reconsider its earlier
assessments of digital technology. Last year, in its Paxton v. Free Speech Coalition
decision, the Supreme Court finally changed course. In oral arguments, multiple
judges from the bench acknowledged the unique hardships of parenting in the digital
age and the inadequacies of filtering software. As Justice Barret, a mother of seven,
acknowledged:
It’s been 20 years since Ashcroft. The iPhone was introduced in 2007, and
Ashcroft was decided in 2004. I mean, kids can get online porn through gaming
systems, tablets, phones, computers. It’s—let me just say that content filtering
for all those different devices, I can say from personal experience—[it’s]
12
difficult to keep up with. [And] I think that the explosion of addiction … to
online porn has shown that content filtering isn’t working. Transcript of Oral
Argument at 9-10, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, No. 23-1122 (U.S. Jan. 15,
2025).
And Justice Alito:
There’s a huge volume of evidence that filtering doesn’t work. We’ve had many
years of experience with it. We now have many, many states who have adopted
age verification requirements. …[W]hy are they doing that if the filtering is so
good? Id. at 12.
Similar acknowledgements were made by the majority in its decision.
Acknowledging that since Ashcroft, “the ‘technology of the Internet’ has continued to
‘evolv[e] at a rapid pace.’ … With the rise of the smartphone and instant streaming,
many adolescents can now access vast libraries of video content—both benign and
obscene—at almost any time and place, with an ease that would have been
unimaginable at the time of Reno and Ashcroft II.” Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v.
Paxton, 606 U.S. 461, 478 (2025). Because of this technology’s rapid evolution in the
past two decades, the Court acknowledged that, with respect to the potential harm to
minors resulting from content that is obscene for minors, “[t]he need for age
verification online is even greater.” Id. at 482. The Texas law simply adapted a
“traditional approach to the digital age” by implementing age verification methods
that are “plainly legitimate.” Id. at 496-97. Thus, the Court upheld Texas’s law
requiring age verification for pornography websites.
The Court is absolutely correct. Age verification technologies have also rapidly
evolved since the internet’s inception and are more technically feasible, reliable,
affordable, and privacy protecting than ever. Age Verification Providers Ass’n as
13
Amicus Curiae at 30, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, 606 U.S. 461 (2025) (No. 231122). As our Institute has shown, there are a variety of ways for tech companies to
verify a user’s age, especially at the app store layer. Perhaps the most reliable and
privacy protecting method is what is known as a “zero-knowledge proof,” which can
be performed by a third party, and which involves the encryption of age data in a
manner that would simply verify that a user is of age or not without disclosing any
age data (e.g., birth date, social security number, driver’s license number, etc). John
Ehrett & Clare Morell, Age Verification: Policy Ideas for States, Institute for Family
Studies (Jun. 13, 2023), https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/briefs/ifs-eppcageverificationpolicybrief.pdf. Put another way, a zero-knowledge proof shares that a
given fact is true, such as that a person is an adult, without disclosing the details of
that fact, like the user’s precise age.
Even where age verification may involve some form of a government issued ID,
a zero-proof knowledge method would not disclose any personal identification
information, making it arguably more privacy protecting than in-person ID checks.
There are a variety of other commercially available means to verify a user’s age, as
well. Clare Morell, Making Smartphones and App Stores Safe for Kids, Ethics and
Public
Policy
Center
&
Institute
for
Family
Studies
(Nov.
6,
2023),
https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/briefs/ifs-eppc-smartphonesappstoresbriefnov23.pdf (“Morell Study”).
In the case of S.B. 2420, the law requires any commercially reasonable method.
Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 121.021(a) (West 2026) ("When an individual in this
14
state creates an account with an app store, the owner of the app store shall use a
commercially reasonable method of verification to verify the individual’s age category
under Subsection (b)."). Such methods may rely “on public or private transactional
data, such as credit cards or bank information, to verify the age of the person
attempting to access the material.” Morell Study at p. 10. In the case of app stores,
such data is readily accessible and already integrated, making age verification an
easy lift. For example, in certain cases, such as when a person applies for an Apple
credit card, Apple uses Apply Pay as a means to verify age. As of today, Apple Pay is
the most popular digital wallet within the United States, with more than 1 in 5
Americans aged 14+ using Apple Pay in 2025. CapitalOne Shopping, Apple Pay
Statistics, Research (Jan. 28, 2026), https://capitaloneshopping.com/research/applepay-statistics/. Moreover, Apple has the ability to securely share user’s data with app
developers through its Declared Age Range Application Programming Interface,
developed last year. Apple, Helping Protect Kids Online, White Paper (2025),
https://developer.apple.com/support/downloads/Helping-Protect-Kids-Online-2025.pdf.
Given today’s technology, the requirements imposed by S.B. 2420 leverage
already existing and widely used technologies, thus posing a minimal burden on users
and app stores alike. Though a different context, this aligns with the Court’s
recognition in Paxton that digital age verification measures are “plainly legitimate.”
Free Speech Coalition, Inc., at 498. As the Fifth Circuit correctly states: “Any
purported burden on app stores and developers is minimal because SB2420 requires
only “commercially reasonable” verification methods and allows developers to use
15
“widely adopted industry standards” in determining age ratings and those related to
corresponding content.” 5th Circuit Order *10.
III.
S.B. 2420 Is Likely Constitutional Because Preserving Parental
Authority is a Compelling Government Interest
The District Court claims that the Act is a content-based regulation that
directly impinges on speech protected by the First Amendment, thus triggering strict
scrutiny. It claims this is so (1) due to the Act’s exclusion of various apps associated
with emergency services and post-secondary education admissions and (2) due to
arguments made in hearings that, in the court’s opinion, that this law is principally
designed to “shield minors from certain Speech the state deems objectionable or
harmful, which is a content-based justification.” Computer & Communications
Industry Ass’n v. Paxton, 814 F.Supp.3d 787, 800 (W.D. Tex. 2025).
However, even assuming protected speech is implicated here (we contend it is
not), the First Amendment has never been read to allow corporations the right to
undermine their parents’ ability to have oversight over their content. Central to the
District Court’s reasoning is the assumption that “it is far from clear that Texas has
a compelling interest in preventing minors’ access to every single category of speech
restricted by SB 2420.” Id. at 801. It’s unlikely that the Court is right in its
interpretation of the Act as a content-based regulation that triggers strict scrutiny.
Yet even should the District Court, for the sake of argument, be right in its judgment
that this law is a content-based restriction, it has failed to adequately reckon with
16
the way courts have typically differentiated between the ways in which States are
permitted to regulate the speech of adults versus minors.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, following longstanding jurisprudence,
made this clear in his dissent in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association
(2011). Justice Thomas writes:
The historical evidence shows that the founding generation believed
parents had absolute authority over their minor children and expected
parents to use that authority to direct the proper development of their
children. It would be absurd to suggest that such a society understood
“the freedom of speech” to include a right to speak to minors (or a
corresponding right of minors to access speech) without going through
the minors’ parents…The founding generation would not have
considered it an abridgment of “the freedom of speech” to support
parental authority by restricting speech that bypasses minors’ parents.
Brown, et al. v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n, et al., 564 U.S. 786
(2011) (Thomas, J. dissenting).
During the Founding, attitudes of children and parenthood were in flux.
America was shifting from a more Puritan perspective of the child as “innately sinful”
and the parent’s primary goal as “suppressing their children’s natural depravity” to
a more Lockean view of the children as “blank slates requiring careful and deliberate
development.” Id. at 824-26. This shift, however, did not lead to a reduced or a weaker
view of parental authority. Despite meaningful differences, the former laid the
foundation for a strong view of American parental authority and duty which the
latter, in many ways, preserved and strengthened.
Indeed, the Lockean idea of the child actually increased society’s investment
in the formation of children. As one scholar cited by Thomas noted, “the Revolution
enhanced the importance of childrearing and education in ensuring social stability.”
17
Id. at 836. Both through social pressure and legal pressure, “teachers and schools
came under scrutiny, and children’s reading material was carefully supervised.” Id.
at 836.
Thus, as this shift occurred, the “same overarching principles remained” and,
“[p]arents continued to have both the right and duty to ensure the proper
development of their children…including control over the books that [they] read.” Id.
at 826. Indeed, these overarching principles continued to be reflected in laws
supporting “parental authority and the sense that children were not fit to govern
themselves.” Id. Parents remained entitled, by law, to “the custody of their [children],
“the value of th[e] [children’s] labor and services” until they reached the age of
majority, and “the right to the exercise of such discipline as may be requisite for the
discharge of their sacred trust.” Id. at 834 (internal quotes omitted) (citing
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 712 (1997). Likewise, in the Founding Era,
children were not allowed to enlist in the military or be married under the age of 21
without parental consent.
Such a robust view of parental authority was not limited to the Founding Era.
It has long been acknowledged by court precedent. The Supreme Court declared that
“[t]his primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now
established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.” Wisconsin v. Yoder,
406 U.S. 205, 232 (1972). The state has an interest in preserving that fundamental
right. A child’s First Amendment right is particularly limited when it compares to
the fundamental right to parent. As the Supreme Court acknowledged, “the child is
18
not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have
the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional
obligations.” Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). Indeed, the Supreme
Court has found that parents have a fundamental right “in the companionship, care,
custody, and management” of their children. Id. Further, the Court stated “[t]his
primary
role
of
the
parents
in
the
upbringing
of
their
children
is
now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.” Yoder, 406 U.S.
at 233. Given this, the Act’s requirement that controls be made available to parents
is perfectly acceptable.
Courts have long recognized that “legislature[s] [can] properly conclude that
parents and others, teachers for example, who have … primary responsibility for
children’s well-being are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid discharge of
that responsibility.” Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 639 (1968); see also Bellotti
v. Baird, 443 U. S. 622, 635 (1979) (opinion of Powell, J.) To this end, “a State or
municipality can adopt more stringent controls on communicative materials available
to youths than on those available to adults.” Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205,
212 (1975).
However, one need not be an originalist to adopt this view. Justice Stephen
Breyer argued in his dissent in Brown that the Supreme Court had long recognized
minors possess “‘lack of maturity’ and are ‘more vulnerable or susceptible to negative
influences and outside pressures,’ and that their ‘character . . . is not as well formed
as that of an adult.’” Brown, 564 U.S. at 851 (Breyer, J. dissenting) (citing Roper v.
19
Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569–570 (2005)). Because of this, there is “compelling
interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors,” and the
“‘regulatio[n] of communication addressed to [children] need not conform to the
requirements of the [F]irst [A]mendment in the same way as those applicable to
adults.’” Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. at 638, n. 6 (1968).
As mentioned above, the District Court’s assessment of this Act as a contentbased restriction that is subject to strict scrutiny rests upon the presupposition that
speech to minors (including a minor’s speech) that bypasses parents is protected
under the First Amendment. Such a presupposition, however, contradicts what the
founders intended, and what the Supreme Court has historically maintained
regarding speech to minors and of minors that bypasses their parents—namely, that
it is not protected under the First Amendment in the same way that adults’ speech is
protected.
Thus, what is in question is not simply whether the state has “free-floating power
to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed,” Brown, at 795—that is,
whether the state has a compelling interest in restricting speech via S.B. 2420—but,
more fundamentally, whether app stores and app developers have the right to speak
to minors, and vice versa, without a parent present. Based on these findings, the
answer can only be a resounding, “No,” both from an originalist perspective and the
historic precedent of the Supreme Court.
The District Court appears to have misunderstood what the Texas’s App Store
Accountability Act sought to accomplish. The law simply requires that any speech
20
made to or by minors be done so in a manner that does not circumvent parents, but,
rather, includes them. Ultimately, the law does not prohibit a minor from accessing
any mobile app with the help of a parent. And, as noted above, it requires age
verification methods that depend on data and technologies already in place, marking
only a modest burden in any incidental encroachment upon adults’ speech.
Furthermore, the state has a compelling interest in aiding parents in carrying
out their duties by requiring app stores and app developers to perform age verification
and acquire verifiable parental consent, especially when the digital context is one
that disempowers parents. While the Supreme Court did not expressly address
parental authority in its reasoning in Paxton, the justices acknowledged (as already
noted) that the character of technology today has become such that obscene content
(from a minor’s perspective) has become so accessible that it is unable to be
sufficiently monitored and stopped by even the most tech-savvy parents. Free Speech
Coalition, 606 U.S. at 496-97. As explained above, mobile apps similarly encroach on
the meaningful ability of parents to carry out their responsibilities regarding the
well-being of their children. By seeking to empower parents in a context that has
eroded their authority, this Act represents a constitutionally legitimate exercise of
state authority.
Beyond the digital sphere, courts have allowed states to safeguard children
from these detrimental practices and uphold parental authority to oversee the
relationships their children maintain with companies, without triggering First
Amendment concerns. Indeed, the Supreme Court outlined a litany of them in Paxton.
21
Id. at 478-80. It is bizarre that online contracts are somehow exempt from this
traditional state power. Indeed, it should not be the case.
Consistent with this Court’s rulings, the Fifth Circuit is correct that
“[r]equiring age verification, parental consent, and app-related content ratings likely
directly and materially advances Texas’s substantial interest in protecting children’s
data, safety, and privacy in a digital world.” 5th Circuit Order *5. On these grounds,
Applicants’ relief should be denied because they are unlikely to show that they will
succeed on the merits.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should rule against Applicants’ requested
relief.
/s/ Joel Thayer
JOEL L. THAYER
Counsel of Record
THAYER, PLLC
1255 Union Street NE
Seventh Floor
Washington D.C. 20002
(760) 668-0934
jthayer@thayer.tech
Attorney for Amicus Curiae
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.