Computer & Communications Industry Association v. Paxton
Issue
Whether Texas SB 2420, which imposes age-verification, parental consent, and age-rating disclosure requirements on app stores, regulates protected speech subject to First Amendment heightened scrutiny, or instead regulates commercial conduct falling within the state's police power and governed by the *Zauderer* commercial-disclosure standard.
What Happened
The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) filed suit in the Western District of Texas challenging SB 2420 and moved for a preliminary injunction, arguing the statute regulates constitutionally protected editorial or expressive conduct by app stores. The National Center on Sexual Exploitation and the Digital Childhood Institute filed an amici curiae brief opposing the preliminary injunction, arguing that SB 2420 regulates three categories of commercial conduct — contract formation with minors, age-rating disclosures, and retail distribution practices — none of which triggers heightened First Amendment scrutiny. Amici contended that *Apple Inc. v. Pepper* controls the commercial-conduct analysis, that contractual capacity regulation is a core sovereign function consistent with federal law including COPPA, and that the statute's age-rating provisions constitute compelled truthful commercial disclosures reviewable only under the more permissive *Zauderer* standard rather than strict or intermediate scrutiny.
Why It Matters
This amici brief advances a content-neutrality framework specifically designed to distinguish SB 2420 from statutes invalidated in *NetChoice v. Griffin* and *Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association*, potentially offering courts a doctrinal path to uphold app-store child-safety regulations by classifying gatekeeping and contracting functions as commercial conduct rather than protected editorial discretion — a distinction that, if accepted, could broadly affect the constitutional viability of similar legislation in other states.
Related Filings
Other proceedings in the same litigation tracked by this monitor.
How accurate was this summary?