• by Wendy Davis , June 11, 2026

A tech industry organization and high school students late Wednesday filed separate petitions asking the Supreme Court to immediately pause a Texas law requiring Google and Apple to verify users' ages and prevent minors under 18 from downloading apps or making in-app purchases, without parental consent.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pitman in Austin blocked the Texas App Store Accountability Act (SB 2420) on First Amendment grounds last year, but a panel of the conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the block late last month and allowed the law to go into effect.

The organization Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT) and two high school students -- identified in court papers as M.F. and Z.B. -- say in their emergency request that they are already suffering "irreparable harm" from the law.

"Each day SB 2420 is in force, minors are denied access to news, educational content, and platforms for creative expression," they argue.

"In the lead-up to the midterm elections, SEAT members cannot wait to engage in political advocacy and outreach until their parents approve their downloads (if they do so at all) or until they age out of the requirements," they add.

"Likewise, plaintiffs M.F., a high school student on the debate team, and Z.B., a student journalist and content creator with an audience of over 1 million teens, need to be able to follow the news, conduct research, and publish content online now and in real time -- not after waiting however long for their parents to consent, and certainly not until after they turn eighteen or when final judgment is eventually entered in this case."

In addition to prohibiting minors from downloading apps without parental consent, the law also requires developers to say whether their apps are appropriate for children under 13, young teens (ages 13 -15), older teens (ages 16-17) or adults 18 and older. The statute also requires app developers to say whether particular in-app purchases are appropriate for children, young teens, older teens or adults. 

The Computer & Communications Industry Association writes in its separate emergency petition: "No brick-and-mortar analog to SB2420 is conceivable -- let alone would survive constitutional scrutiny."

The group adds: "Imagine a state law that required every business -- every bookstore, movie theater, video rental store, record shop, symphony hall, arcade, newsstand, and so on -- to verify the age of every patron at the door and then required parental consent before those under 18 could enter. Once inside, the parent would have to separately provide consent for every item the minor wished to buy, be it a book by Ernest Hemingway or J.K. Rowling, a Taylor Swift album, or a subscription to National Geographic."

Both the tech group and students say the Texas law is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's 2011 decision that struck down a California statute that prohibited the sale of violent video games to minors, without parental consent.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in that case that the government doesn't have "a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed."

He added: "Even where the protection of children is the object, the constitutional limits on governmental action apply."

The Texas law, passed last year, was originally slated to take effect in January. Utah and Louisiana passed similar statutes last year, and federal lawmakers have introduced a nationwide version.

After Pitman blocked the law, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton appealed to the 5th Circuit, arguing that the statute merely regulates "commercial" transactions between minors and app stores.

"When minors download apps they are accepting terms of service, including agreements about how their data is used," Paxton argued. "The child may even be agreeing to have the information in their phone monetized by the tech companies or used to track location."

The 5th Circuit appeared to accept that argument, writing earlier this month that the law "at most" regulates proposed commercial transactions.

"App store transactions are commercial in nature," two 5th Circuit judges (Reagan appointee Jerry Smith and Trump appointee Andrew Oldham) wrote; a third judge (George W. Bush appointee Catharina Haynes) agreed with the decision to lift the injunction but didn't join in the written opinion.

"App listings propose commercial transactions, regardless of whether any monetary payment is made," Smith and Oldham wrote.

The student group argues that this characterization "is clearly wrong."

"Speech distributed by apps is not 'commercial speech' merely because it is provided in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise)," the group argues.

"The Fifth Circuit’s contrary view ... would render virtually the entire internet -- not to mention the distribution of every book, newspaper, magazine, movie, or record album -- 'commercial speech' the government could more readily ban, restrict, edit, or compel," the students add.

The petitions were submitted to Justice Samuel Alito, who handles emergency requests from the 5th Circuit. He hasn't yet indicated how the court will proceed.