Texas Lawmakers Weigh Kids' Online Safety at Hearing

Most of the testimony was about SB-2420, which was introduced by Sen. Angela Paxton (R) and would require app stores to obtain parental consent before allowing access to minors. The committee also considered SB-1860, which amends the Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment (SCOPE) Act to regulate private schools.

“Unlike [with] brick-and-mortar stores, which must verify consumers' age[s] before the purchase of age-restricted products like alcohol and cigarettes, minors currently navigate the expansive digital world completely without guardrails,” said Paxton, the wife of Attorney General Ken Paxton (R). “Parents are the natural first and best line of defense for their child, but it's also very clear that technology companies must be good corporate citizens." She added, SB-2420 "puts an important tool in the hands of parents and some reasonable expectations and requirements on our technology companies.”

Paxton and committee Chair Bryan Hughes (R) latched on to the testimony of Castanita Fitzpatrick, a member of the public supporting the bill. Fitzpatrick cited her experiences with human trafficking and addiction as reasons why the Texas legislature should support the bill. She now serves as a mentor to young women and has been made aware of apps that seem inappropriate for children being rated suitable for minors, like one called “Exposed 2,” which has “spicy” options for sexual conversations and is marketed for ages 12 and older.

“This bill is simply modernizing ways that we need to think about protecting children,” Paxton said. “Ms. Fitzpatrick, it wasn't the phone that got you in initially, but you see the parallel, how it does happen,” asking for her and other witnesses’ perspectives on how SB-2420 “modernizes protecting our kids.”

Later, Hughes appeared unsympathetic to industry groups opposing the bill, asking them to review what Fitzpatrick said and examine the apps in question to rate their appropriateness for the age groups indicated and report back to the committee.

Digital Progress Institute President Joel Thayer supported SB-2420. “Big tech is not only indifferent to the harms children are suffering from these products, but there is strong evidence that they actually may be perpetuating the problem,” he said. “We helped design the framework with two principles in mind. The first was that it's structured to regulate conduct, not content…[and] the framework was developed to make sure we use stakeholders' existing infrastructure and not reinvent the wheel.”

The Digital Childhood Alliance also supported the bill. “For 17 years, Apple has allowed minors to download apps” without first requiring parental consent, said John Read, senior policy counsel. “We're here to stop that [and] empower parents to decide.”

The Texas Public Policy Foundation agreed. “Mobile applications have become a gateway to harm, exposing minors to inappropriate content, predatory practices and unchecked data collection,” said Greyson Gee, the group's policy analyst. SB-2420 “protects children's personal data, limiting data collection and ensuring encryption in an era where children's information is constantly at risk."

However, industry groups testified against the legislation. NetChoice General Counsel Bartlett Cleland said the “Supreme Court and other federal courts have ruled that age verification mandates block access to the exercise of First Amendment rights, and that is unconstitutional.” The bill's age-verification, parental-consent and data-related requirements "will not survive judicial review."

“Current tools like facial age estimation are still a work in progress,” said Tom Mann, Computer and Communications Industry Association state policy manager-south. "CCIA encourages lawmakers to consider technological limitations in providing reliably accurate age estimation tools across all demographic groups. Additionally, if age estimation is not used and individuals must provide their license or personal information, that means collecting more personal data, which might worry families who value privacy as much as they value safety.”

“The legislation presents deep constitutional issues from its mandate for device manufacturers or App Store to estimate or verify the user's age,” said Johnny Kampis, telecom policy director for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance. “Although well-intentioned, the bill will create substantial, substantial privacy risk and violate clear supreme residents with broad age limitations the user's right to access various digital services.”

Meanwhile, the other bill (SB-1860) received conditional support from the Texas Private Schools Association. Executive Director Laura Colangelo said she supported the original legislation but wants private schools to continue to be excluded from the SCOPE Act.

“Some savvy attorneys determined that private schools could be considered digital service providers because they collect personally identifying information with internet connectivity,” Colangelo said. “I don't think that was the intent of this law at all, but they were quick to offer their services to get all private schools in line with these provisions." While "Google and Apple can certainly get in line with those provisions," she said not every private school has the technology or "professional capacity" to do so.