Last December, Robert Pitman, judge of the District Court for the Western District of Texas, enjoined the Texas App Store Accountability Act. The Act, which would have mandated age verification for app stores, was to go into effect January 1, 2026. But thanks to this ruling, it may not go into effect for years – or at all.
Proponents of the act argued that it was necessary: parents, even those who want to ensure their children do not see harmful material online, simply cannot navigate the plethora of apps, websites, and content that their children might have access to. If it had been allowed to go into effect, the legislation would have aided them by forcing app stores to pick up the slack and, by default, keep minors away from content they shouldn’t be viewing.
But thanks to Pitman, that’s up in the air. The Obama-appointed judge – who was supported by incumbent Republican Texas Sen. John Cornyn – has a long history of left-wing rulings, from support for abortion to other rulings in favor of social media companies.
Pitman’s ruling here was particularly galling. His decision has only temporarily blocked the law as it works its way through the court system, meaning that a final ruling on constitutionality is likely years away, and may require trips to the Supreme Court. In 20 pages, he summarized his view of the legislation, laying out his arguments for why the law was likely unconstitutional.
He started with a particularly facile comparison, calling it “akin to a law that would require every bookstore to verify the age of every customer at the door and, for minors, require parental consent.” Obviously, the internet is nothing like a bookstore. For one, no bookstore requires you to sign away your privacy or agree to terms of service before entering the store or monitor all your reading while you’re in the store. Also, anything can pop up on the internet, oftentimes without it being asked for. Books, by contrast, do not shout at you, insist that you kill yourself, or otherwise attack you.
There are literally laws on the books that ban the sale of certain books and magazines to children. In Texas, a 5-year-old boy cannot walk into a convenience store and buy the latest issue of Playboy. If a 15-year-old walks in and seeks to buy one, the clerk will have to “verify the age” to ensure that he is at least 18 years old. These laws are not new, nor are they controversial. It is difficult to imagine, therefore, why Judge Pitman believes that minors should not be allowed to purchase softcore pornography magazines while they should have free access to extreme violence, hardcore pornography, and all the other horrors of the internet.
Pitman sought to pretend to care about concerns for child safety. Firstly, he claimed that he “recognizes the importance of ongoing efforts to better safeguard children when they are on their devices,” even taking a segway to dive into the litany of issues unrestricted access to the internet causes. But he ends this brief false paean to understanding by throwing up his hands and saying that attempts to actually do something are unconstitutional.
Secondly, Pitman drew reference to another Texas law, which required age verification for porn sites. The judge argued that that law, upheld last year by the Supreme Court, was much narrower, and therefore more acceptable. But this is comparing apples and oranges. To start, the app store law doesn’t regulate content at all; it requires app store companies, like Apple, Google, and Meta, to verify ages to ensure that no app company can enforce privacy policies and terms of service on kids without parental consent. Whereas the law to which he refers is aimed at protecting kids from accessing sexually explicit content. At best, Judge Pitman misunderstood the regulation or at worst, believes parents should have no say over their kids’ internet experience.
Even so, there is also no reason to assume Pitman would have upheld that law had he been assigned the case; based on his history, it is likely that he would not have – which makes it all the more rich that he claims it as an example of an acceptable law.
Crowing over his ruling, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) – which brought the case – claimed that “the ruling protects parents’ inviolate right to use their own judgment in safeguarding their children online using the myriad tools our members provide.” Obviously, the CCIA is not interested in actually safeguarding children online, as they seek to challenge laws like these wherever they can.
Fortunately, the State of Texas will almost certainly appeal Pitman’s ruling to the conservative Fifth Circuit – and if need be, hopefully they will continue to the Supreme Court. But for the time being, Texas children will be less safe, thanks to judicial activism.