WASHINGTON—In one more final act before summer recess, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) chose on Monday not to block enforcement of a Texas law requiring age verification for users of Apple's and Google's app marketplaces. This is not surprising, given the court's 2025 ruling on age verification, which focused on adult content.
A student organization and a trade association for the technology industry must now continue litigation that both groups brought, as enforcement at the state level commences. AVN reported earlier this month that Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT) and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) filed dual petitions at the Supreme Court after the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a preliminary injunction levied by a federal district judge in Texas who found the law most likely violates the First Amendment.
The law in question, Senate Bill (SB) 2420, also known as the App Store Accountability Act, was adopted by the GOP-held Texas state legislature last year and entered into force in January 2026. Similar in design to Texas House Bill (HB) 1181, which requires age verification for porn sites, the bill targets online mobile app marketplaces like the Apple App Store and Google Play to require age gating over popular social media apps—including X, TikTok and Instagram—as well as mobile games.
"In response to an emergency request, the Supreme Court has decided not to intervene in an Appeals Court ruling allowing Texas to enforce its App Store law," reads a release by the CCIA. "The law requires people to show government ID or other proof of age before downloading apps and requires parental consent for minors to download apps and app content."
"It also imposes burdensome requirements on app developers to age-rate their content," the release notes. Members of CCIA include Meta Platforms, the massive parent company of the Mark Zuckerberg-owned social networks Facebook and Instagram. Instagram is one of the most popular social media platforms for marketing adult entertainment content. And due to that, among other factors, the adoption of SB 2420 was to present a regulatory framework focused on protecting minors, which the bill defines as any individual under the age of 13. As noted, the law was written because it has a core objective to regulate entire digital ecosystems at a systematic scale, rather than targeting narrow content categories.
CCIA's president and chief executive officer, Matt Schruers, noted: "We look forward to an expedited hearing before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in early August to demonstrate how Texas’ App Store Accountability Act violates the First Amendment. People should not have to turn over personal data to access the internet any more than they should show government identification to enter a bookstore."
Alison Boden, executive director of adult industry trade group the Free Speech Coalition (FSC), said this decision isn't a surprise.
"Despite warnings that age verification laws targeting adult websites were the thin end of the wedge, social media companies and app stores were complacent and even supportive of the ruling in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton," Boden explained in a statement. "It comes as no surprise that Justice Alito decided to let the [Texas] App Store Accountability Act stay in effect, and Americans should brace themselves for laws like this to get the same stamp of approval from the high court."
Adult industry attorney Corey Silverstein is also concerned. He said in an email that the decision is "procedural," and it "reinforces" online age assurance policy.
"The Supreme Court’s refusal to block Texas’ app store age-verification law is another significant indication that courts are becoming increasingly receptive to laws requiring age verification as a means of protecting minors online," Silverstein explained. "The legal landscape has shifted dramatically from where it stood just a few years ago, and the adult industry can no longer assume that constitutional challenges alone will halt these laws. [...] The regulatory trend is clear, and it is unlikely to reverse course anytime soon."
"While the order does not provide any insight into how the Court might ultimately evaluate the legal challenges, the decision not to reinstate the block on enforcement by SCOTUS is disappointing and an ominous development," said Lawrence Walters, another adult industry attorney, in an email to AVN.
He added, "First Amendment advocates remain hopeful that the Court will recognize the constitutional defects in this law and ultimately render a favorable decision on the merits."
