Litigation Heats Up Over Texas App Store Accountability Act

This month, the Texas App Store Accountability Act (TASAA) (SB2420) became the center of two major legal challenges, testing the boundaries between digital governance, free speech and privacy protection. Two groups–one of Big Tech companies, and one of students and allied parents–are contesting the Act in federal court, framing it as an unconstitutional overreach. 

The Act is slated to go into effect starting January 1, 2026, but the litigation brings uncertainty about whether the Act will be enforced starting in January, or delayed. Here are some things developers should know before January.

About TASAA 

TASAA was signed into law on May 27, 2025. The Act requires mobile-app marketplaces and their developers to implement robust age-verification, parental control flows, and detailed age-ratings for apps and in-app purchases. Furthermore, when developers make “significant changes” to their apps, like altering privacy terms, monetization strategies, or data collection practices, they must provide notice to each app store hosting the app. 

App stores, in turn, are responsible for verifying users’ ages via “commercially reasonable methods.” Every user is then classified as one of the four: (1) child, (2) younger teenager, (3) older teenager, or (4) adult. Minors (as classified) may not download or purchase apps unless a verified parent or guardian links their account and approves each transaction individually. 

Violations of the Act by any party (developer or app-store) constitute “deceptive trade practices” under Texas’s Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), and carry fines of up to $10,000 per violation. TASAA does not contain any exceptions for small businesses, so indie developers must adhere to the same compliance obligations as Big Tech.

TASAA’s Data Privacy, Security and AI Governance Implications

TASAA’s goal is protecting children online, but the data privacy trade-offs in achieving the goal are significant. 

Under TASAA, age verification requires the collection of personal or biometric information (such as an ID card to prove identity, and confirmation of parent/guardian status), creating a large surveillance footprint for app stores. This additional layer of information conflicts with some AI governance best practices, which call for data minimization. Since the Act was first introduced, security experts have warned that requiring each user to verify their (and their child’s) identities, and centralizing that data, increases systemic cyber risk by creating more potential attack surfaces.  

Additionally, Texas recently enacted the Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (TRAIGA), which sets rules for biometric and AI use in commercial settings. Taken together, these laws raise questions about interoperability between privacy, AI ethics, and platform compliance.

Mounting Litigation

Big Tech Case: CCIA v. Paxton 

On October 15, 2025, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) (which includes members such as Apple, Google, Meta and Amazon) filed a complaint arguing that the Act turns companies into “broad censorship regimes” and violates the First and Fourteenth amendments in the following manners: 

First, it compels app stores to age-verify all app store users, not just the children the Act aims to protect. Effectively, this means that every user, even those over the age of 18, must submit to an invasive process of validating their identities. If a user is not able to validate that they are over 18, they must link a parent or legal guardian to their user account, and the parent must validate both that they are over 18, and that they have legal authority to make decisions for the minor. For adults that do not have adequate means to demonstrate their age, this system thwarts their ability to access web content. 

Second, the Act prohibits minors from downloading apps or making in-app purchases without parental consent in most instances, including preventing minors’ access to apps that contain news, bible study, messaging, and myriad other educational applications. The only apps not regulated are those sponsored by the government, and certain nonprofit apps that administer educational training. This is argued to unjustly curtail the type and source of content minors are empowered to consume.

Finally, CCIA claims the Act violates the Fourteenth Amendment by interfering with state commerce by imposing state-specific content labeling standards that burden global application ecosystems. 

Student Case: Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT) v. Paxton 

On October 16, 2025, a group called Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT), composed of minors and their guardians, brought the first direct First Amendment challenge to TASAA. The students argue that the law violates the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011), which struck down government restrictions on minors’ access to protected expression. The full Complaint, filed by Davis Wright Tremaine, can be read here.

In sum, SEAT maintains that the TASAA imposes content-based prior restraints on searches, by forcing app stores to act as state gatekeepers of information. SEAT argues that students who rely on educational materials found on apps like Slack, YouTube or Reddit will face access barriers simply because they are minors. Parents aligned with SEAT claim that the law creates obligations for parents to intrude on their children’s privacy and autonomy in a way and to a degree that they would not otherwise, effectively mandating parental oversight. Additionally, because minors may not have ID, or feasible parental links, the law may effectively block access to widely used apps for some children. 

What to Expect Going Forward

Both suits request the Court declare TASAA unconstitutional, and unenforceable. They also ask the Court to temporarily prohibit Texas from enforcing TASAA until the case is decided. If these requests are granted, it is unclear when enforcement for TASAA will begin, if ever. Legal practitioners in Texas expect a hearing to be held on the issue of an injunction by mid-November.

In the meantime, developers should keep the following in mind: 

• Monitor litigation outcomes: Track both the CCIA and SEAT cases. While it is possible that TASAA will be delayed or modified, developers cannot assume immunity. The Act’s obligations remain unless fully enjoined. 

• Build flexible compliance architecture: Developers should design age/consent flows so they can  be enabled/disabled or modified depending on court outcome. Investing in compliance (such as age-verification, parental flows, net analytics, segment logic) may be expensive, but waiting may create a rush (or challenges in later-stage integration) if the Act does go into effect.

• Consider data-minimization and vendor oversight: The obligation to integrate data collection to verify identities and familial relationships requires special attention to data privacy and security (particularly because much of the information relates to minors). Ensure policies are in place for document retention/deletion, encryption, and breach-notifications. Vendor agreements should also contain clauses allocating liability for breaches.

• Treatment of minor data (consent): Developers must treat consent data with high sensitivity, just as they would with financial or health data. 

• Treatment of minor data (AI/ML apps): Age verification requirements create additional responsibilities for companies who must treat users that they know to be minors with special protections. If AI/ML apps ingest data from minors, developers may need to explicitly segment or exclude minor-accounts from certain features, enforce stricter monitoring, or implement transparency features for minors.

• Consider market strategy for Texas: Though TASAA is a Texas law, any app that is downloaded by Texas residents will fall under TASAA’s compliance obligations. It may be worthwhile to avoid launching in Texas, delay until legal clarity is available, or block Texas users entirely until litigation provides more concrete guidance. 

Conclusion

With pending litigation, developers cannot presume smooth or immediate implementation of the TASAA. For app developers, this means the regulatory horizon is, at least in this moment, less predictable. Flexible design, stringent data-protection and careful go-to market strategies are required. 

Whether Texas’ early legislation will be seen as a step toward digital accountability or as a constitutional overreach remains to be seen, but the stakes for data privacy, online speech, and AI-driven app governance are high. Stay tuned for further updates on these cases and how they may impact apps going forward.