App Store Accountability Act (ASAA) proposals shift youth online protection upstream: from individual apps and websites to the app store layer (and, in some states, to developers as well). Instead of every app building its own age assurance solution, the model aims to make the app store establish the age category of the account holder (or device user) and, for minors, require ‘verifiable parental consent’ before they can download an app or make purchases. The ASAA is promoted as a response to children being asked to accept terms of service when downloading an app, as the ability of minors to agree to a contract is generally limited below the age of 18.
Information is believed to be correct as of (October 2026)
| 1. Texas | SB 2420 |
Law is currently enforceable, following Fifth Circuit intervention and a subsequent Supreme Court decision declining emergency relief. |
| 2. Utah | SB 142 (HB 498) |
Core took effect May 6, 2026. The February lawsuits were dismissed in April. |
| 3. Louisiana | HB 570 | 1st July 2026 |
| 4. Alabama | HB 161 | 1st January 2027 |
Arkansas
Arkansas's earlier Social Media Safety Act (SB 396, 2023) established a precursor model requiring app stores to obtain parental consent for minors, and its ongoing litigation has informed constitutional analysis of later ASAA legislation.
California
California took a different, but related, approach with AB 1043, (the Digital Age Assurance Act) that begins in 2027. This relies on self-reported age brackets in the operating system created during the device setup, with no mandatory age verification or parental consent for every download. California's AB 1043 is an example of moving toward age signals via OS APIs (self-reported brackets like under 13, 13–15, 16–17, 18+), rather than mandating parental consent for every download or robust verification.
Federal
There is also a federal version of the App Store Accountability Act (S.1586 / H.R. 3149, introduced 2025), but it has not been enacted as of October 2026.
Features
- A distribution-layer safeguard: age assurance happens where apps are obtained (app stores) and is then used to drive downstream protections.
- A parental-consent framework for minors: the model commonly links a minor account to a parent/guardian account and requires verifiable consent for downloads and/or purchases.
- A signal/metadata approach: app stores pass an age bracket and consent status to developers.
- Age verification which requires outcomes (verified age category / verifiable parental consent) without naming a single mandated method leaving implementation choices open.
To meet "verify age category" requirements meaningfully, app stores generally need something beyond a self-asserted birthdate. In practice, that can mean document-based checks, verified credentials, third-party attestations, or other "commercially reasonable" methods (varies by jurisdiction and implementing rules).
Whether Estimation (e.g Facial Age Estimation) is acceptable depends on how "verification" is defined in statute/rulemaking or on the app stores own policy decisions.
If a jurisdiction primarily relies on app-store account architecture (e.g., device-level age signaling) and allows lower-friction methods for non-sensitive categories, developers may consume an age signal without collecting additional data themselves.
App Store Accountability Acts (ASAAs) face constitutional challenges primarily under the First Amendment. Opponents argue that requiring age verification and parental consent before accessing a broad range of applications can burden access to lawful speech, potentially functioning as a prior restraint. Supporters maintain that these requirements serve legitimate child-protection interests and strengthen parental oversight. Courts must consider whether the restrictions are appropriately tailored to those interests.
- Texas SB 2420 was preliminarily enjoined on December 23, 2025, after a federal district court found that the law likely violated First Amendment protections. However, the Fifth Circuit stayed that injunction in May 2026, allowing enforcement to proceed while litigation continues. On July 6, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court declined emergency intervention to block the law. Texas’s ASAA is therefore currently enforceable, although its ultimate constitutionality remains unresolved.
- Utah SB 142, subsequently amended by HB 498 in March 2026, faced federal constitutional challenges filed in February 2026, including litigation brought by the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA). Those challenges were reportedly dismissed in April 2026, and the law’s core requirements took effect on May 6, 2026. Utah’s ASAA is currently in force.
- Arkansas SB 396, enacted in 2023 as the Social Media Safety Act, has faced constitutional litigation concerning age verification and parental consent for social media access. Although it differs from the broader app-store model, the litigation provides relevant precedent for evaluating First Amendment challenges to age-gating requirements.
These cases highlight the continuing constitutional debate over whether age-assurance requirements imposed at the app-store or platform level can adequately protect minors without disproportionately restricting access to lawful online expression.
Other States Considering ASAA versions:
Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, West Virginia
PLEASE NOTE:
This page summarises current law and proposals and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult independent legal advisers before making compliance decisions.