Supreme Court lets Texas app-store age-verification law stand; case continues

↻Ask Interactive NewsLook for updates to this storyFind out what has changed since this story was published.→

On July 6, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court denied emergency requests in Students Engaged in Advancing Texas v. Paxton (docket 25A1389) that sought to vacate a stay tied to Texas’s app-store age-verification law. The result: the existing stay posture remains in place while the First Amendment challenge continues.

What the Supreme Court did—and what it didn’t do i

In a one-line emergency-docket order in the ongoing case, the Court denied “the application to vacate stay” that had been presented to Justice Alito and then referred to the Court.

Procedurally, that means the Supreme Court did not resolve whether Texas’s law is constitutional on the merits. Instead, it denied emergency relief that would have changed the case’s immediate posture.

What the Texas App Store Accountability Act requires i

Texas’s law (Chapter 121 of the Texas Business & Commerce Code, the “App Store Accountability Act”) requires app stores to take steps once a user is assigned to an age category other than “adult.”

1) Age verification with defined age categories
When an individual creates an account in Texas, the app store owner must use a “commercially reasonable method” to verify the user’s age category, using these categories: child (under 13), younger teenager (at least 13 but under 16), older teenager (at least 16 but under 18), and adult (18+).

2) Parent-account affiliation for minors
If the user is a minor in a non-adult age category, the app store must require the minor’s account to be affiliated with a parent or guardian “parent account” (including verification that the parent account holder has authority to make decisions for the minor).

3) Parental consent before downloads and in-app purchases
Except for specific statutory exceptions, app stores must obtain consent from the minor’s parent or guardian—through the parent account—before allowing the minor to: (1) download a software application, (2) purchase a software application, or (3) make a purchase in or using a software application. The statute also specifies that consent must be obtained for each individual download or purchase the minor seeks.

4) Privacy limits aimed at data minimization and secure handling
The law requires app stores to protect user data by limiting collection and processing of personal data to the minimum amount necessary for verifying age, obtaining consent, and maintaining compliance records, and by transmitting personal data using industry-standard encryption protocols.

Who is affected right now i

• Minors and families: The constitutional fight over how app downloads and purchases are handled for minors continues, with emergency relief denied for now.
• App stores and operators: The dispute centers on the state’s ability to impose age-verification and parent-consent requirements through app-store intermediaries while the case proceeds in federal court.
• App developers: The law also creates compliance hooks connected to age categories and consent, tying implementation questions to the ongoing First Amendment challenge.

Why this is a civil-liberties accountability story i

This case is being litigated as a First Amendment and accountability question: whether and how states can regulate minors’ access to apps and app-based purchases through mechanisms that rely on verification and parental-consent systems. Because the Supreme Court’s action was limited to emergency relief, the ultimate constitutional issue is still for the lower courts to decide on the merits.

What to watch next i

With emergency relief denied, the next major steps are expected to come from continued appellate proceedings in the lower courts. Depending on how those proceedings develop, the parties may seek additional Supreme Court review.

Sources

• U.S. Supreme Court order denying emergency application (25A1389)
• Texas App Store Accountability Act (Chapter 121) text

↻Ask Interactive NewsLook for updates to this storyFind out what has changed since this story was published.→

⇄Ask Interactive NewsRelated NewsDive deeper into these stories and how they connect.→

• Garland rejects proposed short-term-rental zoning rules
• Killeen reports five hospital transports after Lake Road fire
• Cherokee County seeks input on hazard plan; Wells listed
• Denton water-plant expansion carries $628 million estimate