Texas Attorney General Escalates Fight Over Blocked App Store Law as Constitutional Battle Intensifies
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed an appeal challenging a federal judge’s decision to block the state’s App Store Accountability Act, setting the stage for a prolonged constitutional battle over digital regulation just days before the law was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026. The move comes after U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman granted a preliminary injunction on Tuesday, December 23, ruling that the sweeping legislation likely violates the First Amendment by imposing unconstitutional restrictions on speech.
Court Delivers Blow to Youth Protection Law
Judge Pitman’s ruling concluded that Texas Senate Bill 2420 failed the most demanding level of constitutional review, finding that the state “was not able to explain to the court how blocking entire app stores from view had anything to do” with addressing youth safety concerns, according to court proceedings. The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), representing major app store operators including Apple, Google, and Amazon, filed the lawsuit against Paxton in his official capacity as attorney general.
In a detailed order, the judge compared the digital mandate to “requiring a physical bookstore to verify a customer’s age at the front door and demanding parental consent before a minor could browse or buy a book,” emphasizing how the law “restricts access to a vast universe of speech by requiring Texans to prove their age before downloading a mobile app,” according to The New York Times.
Sweeping Requirements Face Constitutional Scrutiny
The App Store Accountability Act would have required all Texans to verify their age before downloading mobile apps or making in-app purchases, while mandating that minors obtain parental consent for each individual download or purchase. The legislation imposed penalties of up to $10,000 per violation and applied universally to all apps regardless of content type or target audience, with no revenue or user threshold exemptions.
Judge Pitman identified multiple constitutional flaws in the legislation, including provisions requiring developers to assign age ratings without clear standards while threatening liability for “knowingly misrepresenting” ratings. The court also found that requirements forcing apps to send fresh notices and revoke minors’ access whenever content, “functionality,” or “user experience” changes “materially” were unconstitutionally vague and invited “arbitrary enforcement”.
Tech Industry Warns of Broader Implications
“We support online protections for younger internet users, and those protections should not come at the expense of free expression and personal privacy,” stated Stephanie Joyce, CCIA Senior Vice President and Director of CCIA Litigation Center. Joyce warned that the law “could have effectively shut down app stores in Texas,” adding that “it forces app stores into becoming the final arbiters of people’s age”.
The ruling represents a setback for Texas lawmakers who framed the legislation as necessary for child safety in the digital age. Apple announced it would pause previously announced compliance plans for Texas while monitoring the “ongoing legal process,” though the company noted its developer tools for age assurance would remain available for testing.
Appeal Heads to Conservative Fifth Circuit
The case now moves to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has a history of overturning injunctions on internet regulations. Paxton’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding the ruling or specific plans for the appeal.
A separate challenge brought by Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT) was consolidated with the CCIA lawsuit during a December 16 hearing, focusing on how the law burdens minors rather than app companies. Judge Pitman issued a facial injunction blocking the entire law, finding that its unconstitutional applications “substantially outweigh” any valid ones and that allowing implementation would cause irreparable harm to First Amendment rights.
The constitutional clash highlights the ongoing tension between state efforts to regulate technology platforms and federal protections for free expression, with the outcome potentially setting precedent for similar legislation nationwide.