第五巡回法院暂缓禁令德州应用商店问责法案生效
SOURCE / Future of Privacy Forum · Comparing Enacted App Store Accountability Acts
原文
Comparing Enacted App Store Accountability Acts
完整原文
Comparing Enacted App Store Accountability Acts FILTER June 3, 2026 Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on Twitter Share through Email Daniel Hales Policy Counsel for U.S. Legislation About Daniel Blogs by Daniel On May 28, 2026, the 5th Circuit granted a stay on the preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of Texas’s App Store Accountability Act (ASAA)—meaning the law is now in effect while litigation on the merits continues. In 2025, Utah, Texas, and Louisiana enacted App Store Accountability Acts (ASAAs) which impose novel and significant age assurance obligations on app store providers and app developers. These laws require account holder age verification and parental consent for minors at the app store level, with age band and consent data transmitted between the two parties via bespoke “age signals.” Texas’s law was the first scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2026. Before the law took effect, however, two groups filed suit challenging its constitutionality on First Amendment grounds. In December 2025, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law, finding it more likely than not an unconstitutional content-based regulation. Attorney General Paxton quickly appealed this decision to the 5th Circuit seeking a stay on the injunction, which was subsequently granted last week. The uncertain constitutional outlook of ASAAs puts compliance teams in a difficult position. Moving slowly risks liability if the laws survive legal challenge; moving quickly risks sunken compliance costs if ASAAs are ultimately struck down—costs that could have otherwise been diverted to other important trust and safety priorities. While Utah’s, Texas’s, and Louisiana’s laws impose broadly similar obligations on app store providers and developers, important distinctions will shape how companies ultimately achieve compliance. Amendments to Utah’s and Louisiana’s laws in 2026 further shape the developing obligations in each state. FPF created a comparison chart detailing the key terms, scope, and core obligations of these laws, including changes incorporated by 2026 amendments. The chart also includes an Appendix detailing current information about Developer APIs released publicly by app stores to aid developers as these requirements go into effect. Download the Comparison Chart here Key takeaways from this resource include: Scope: These laws apply broadly to apps publicly available to consumers for download in an app store with very narrow exceptions, such as for settings apps or essential device drivers, and no wholesale exemptions from application. Uniquely, Louisiana also applies to apps that are available for download from an app store onto connected devices. Obligations: These laws require app store providers to implement age verification and obtain parental consent for minor account holders making purchases, downloads, in-app transactions, or significant account changes. Utah and Louisiana extend this requirement to a minor’s first-time access to many pre-loaded apps. Developers must request and receive age signals from app stores, use that data to manage minor access, and implement appropriate safety features. Utah and Louisiana add notable nuances for developers, such as allowing them to request that app stores block minor access to their apps entirely, or permitting reliance on a primary account holder’s age data for “family account apps.” Enforcement: Private rights of action (PRAs) are a trending enforcement mechanism in ASAA models. While Utah relies solely on a PRA for enforcement, Texas’s law only allows a PRA through incorporated references to the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). Louisiana is the only law that does not include a PRA. The ASAA trend has continued into 2026 with Alabama enacting a new ASAA law back in February. Alabama’s law largely tracks with the ASAA models in Utah and Louisiana following their 2026 amendments. As ASAA legislation and litigation continues to develop, the 5th Circuit’s stay on injunction means that compliance teams must figure out how to navigate this growing thicket of app store age signals and online safety requirements in the meantime. Last Updated: June 3, 2026 Explore FPF’s 2026 DC Privacy Forum: Leading Voices in AI, Privacy and Emerging TechnologyUnderstanding Data Embassies and CorridorsPerseverance Pays Off for Vermont Privacy EffortsFrontier AI Goes Federal: How the Great American AI Act Compares to State LawsPrivacy Becomes You, Bayou State: A Look at the Louisiana Data Privacy ActComparing Enacted App Store Accountability ActsNo Silver Bullet, But a Silver Lining? PETs and International Data TransfersCareer Choice in the AI Age: What Next for Privacy and Data Professionals?FPF Releases Practitioner Guides on Privacy Enhancing Technologies for Education StakeholdersSB 5 in Five: What to Know About Connecticut’s New AI Law Dates None Past Month Past Year Custom Range document.querySelector('.sidebar select[name="date_filter_type"]').addEventListener('change', function() { setDateFacet(this.value); }); function setDateFacet(value) { const date_range_start = document.querySelector('.sidebar .facetwp-date-min'); const date_range_end = document.querySelector('.sidebar .facetwp-date-max'); if(value == 'past_month') { const date = new Date(); date.setMonth(date.getMonth() - 1); const formatted_date = date.toISOString().split('T')[0]; date_range_start.value = formatted_date; FWP.refresh(); } else if(value == 'past_year') { const date = new Date(); date.setFullYear(date.getFullYear() - 1); const formatted_date = date.toISOString().split('T')[0]; date_range_start.value = formatted_date; FWP.refresh(); } else if(value == 'none' && (date_range_start.value || date_range_end.value)) { date_range_start.value = ''; date_range_end.value = ''; FWP.refresh(); } } .facetwp-type-date_range { display: none; gap: 2px; } .sidebar select[name="date_filter_type"] { width: 100%; height: 48px; font-weight: 700; font-size: 16px; color: #231f23; padding: 0 15px; background-color: #fff; border: none; margin-bottom: 12px; } .sidebar select[name="date_filter_type"]:has(option[value="custom_range"]:checked) ~ .facetwp-type-date_range { display: flex; } .sidebar .facetwp-date { width: 100%; height: 48px; font-weight: 700; font-size: 16px; color: #231f23; padding: 0 15px; background-color: #fff; border: none; } Content Types Issues Topics FPF Staff Guest Authors Submit Posts by Daniel Comparing Enacted App Store Accountability Acts READ MORE SB 5 in Five: What to Know About Connecticut’s New AI Law READ MORE The EU Commission’s Approach to Age Verification: Mobile Apps, DSA Enforcement, and Challenging National Social Media Bans READ MORE View More
归纳
2026年5月28日，美国第五巡回上诉法院批准暂缓执行针对得克萨斯州《应用商店问责法案》（ASAA）的初步禁令，这意味着该法案在实体诉讼继续进行期间已生效。2025年，犹他州、得克萨斯州和路易斯安那州分别通过了《应用商店问责法案》，这些法案对应用商店施加了新颖且重大的年龄验证义务。
点评
第五巡回法院暂缓禁令使德州应用商店问责法案生效，核心法律关切在于该法案施加的年龄验证义务可能引发平台合规成本与用户言论自由之间的宪法冲突。
法律视角点评
AI 生成 · 人工审核核心关切
第五巡回法院暂缓禁令使德州应用商店问责法案生效，核心法律关切在于该法案施加的年龄验证义务可能引发平台合规成本与用户言论自由之间的宪法冲突。
实务启示
中国法律人应关注域外平台责任立法中年龄验证义务的合规要求，以评估对跨境应用商店运营的潜在影响。