Josh Withrow, a fellow in Technology and Innovation Policy at the R Street Institute, presented testimony before the Virginia Senate Committee on General Laws and Technology opposing Senate Bill 237, known as the “App Store Accountability Act.” The bill would require mobile app stores to verify whether device owners are adults or minors and obtain parental consent for every app download, update, or purchase made by minors.
Withrow stated that while protecting children from harmful online content is important, mandatory age verification for all devices and apps is not an appropriate solution. He argued that such requirements could be considered an overly broad restriction on access to protected speech and content under the First Amendment.
He explained that SB 237 would require every mobile device owner to have their age verified so users can be sorted into specific age categories. According to Withrow, even advanced age verification technologies have error rates that may force some adults to provide additional documentation to prove they are not minors. Adults setting up parent accounts would likely need to use government-issued identification for verification purposes.
Withrow raised concerns about data privacy, noting that although the bill instructs app stores to retain only necessary compliance data, fear of liability could lead companies to keep more sensitive personal information than needed. He said this increased data collection creates new risks for consumers if hackers target these records.
He referenced similar legislation in California where a court found that requiring businesses to collect more personal information from consumers could worsen data security issues (https://reason.org/commentary/californias-online-age-verification-law-is-unconstitutional/). Withrow also cited Supreme Court decisions holding that broad attempts to restrict access for minors on general-use online platforms are unconstitutional (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/844;https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/542/656/).
In his testimony, Withrow quoted Justice Scalia: “we note our doubts that punishing third parties for conveying protected speech to children just in case their parents disapprove of that speech is a proper governmental means of aiding parental authority.”
He pointed out that Texas passed a similar law last year which was immediately blocked by a district court. Judge Robert Pitman compared mandatory app store age verification with requiring bookstores to check customers’ ages at the door and called it “unconstitutional in the vast majority of its applications” (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172869998/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172869998.65.0.pdf).
Withrow argued there are already effective tools available for parents who want control over their children’s online activity. Major technology companies have improved parental controls at various levels (https://developer.apple.com/support/downloads/Helping-Protect-Kids-Online-2025.pdf), and there is a robust market for third-party software offering detailed management options (https://www.internetmatters.org/parental-controls/). Guides are also available explaining how parents can use these features.
He suggested alternatives such as state-supported education initiatives about digital literacy—like Tennessee’s recent inclusion of digital literacy in public school curriculums—and campaigns like those run by the Federal Trade Commission aimed at helping parents navigate existing controls (https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=HB0825&GA=114;https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-use-parental-controls-keep-your-kid-safer-online).
Withrow concluded: “Ultimately, we believe that a better substitute for these government age-verification mandates would be to find ways that the state can help parents understand the power they already possess to keep their kids safe online, and to educate kids and teens about how to responsibly navigate social media and the internet.”
