Josh Withrow, a fellow specializing in technology and innovation policy at the R Street Institute, presented testimony before Virginia lawmakers opposing House Bill 757, 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 each app download, update, or purchase made by minors.
Withrow explained that while the goal of protecting children online is important, “we do not believe that mandating age verification for access to all devices and apps is a proper means to that end.” He raised concerns about both practical implementation and potential constitutional issues. According to Withrow, verifying users’ ages would force all device owners into one of four age categories using commercial methods intended to ensure accuracy. However, even advanced technologies have notable error rates. This could result in adult users needing to provide official identification documents to prove they are not minors.
Adults setting up parent accounts might also be required to confirm their status with government-issued identification so their children can use devices. Although the bill instructs app stores only to retain necessary data for compliance, Withrow warned this could lead companies to keep more sensitive information than needed due to liability fears. The risk increases because the bill allows private lawsuits if protections are deemed insufficiently enforced.
The requirement for additional consumer data collection under HB 757 raises cybersecurity risks by creating new targets for hackers. Similar concerns were cited when a federal court blocked California’s Age Appropriate Design Code; the court found such laws could increase risks by requiring businesses—including those serving children—to collect more personal information from users (https://reason.org/commentary/californias-online-age-verification-law-is-unconstitutional/).
Withrow noted that courts have repeatedly ruled broad age-gating of general-use platforms unconstitutional under the First Amendment (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/844). Requiring parental consent for minors’ access to lawful content has also been struck down by the Supreme Court: “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 similar laws in other states have faced immediate legal challenges. In Texas, a district court enjoined SB 2420—the first such law enacted—calling it unconstitutional in most applications (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172869998/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172869998.65.0.pdf). Judge Robert Pitman compared mandatory age checks at app stores with requiring bookstores to verify every customer’s age before entry or purchase.
Withrow argued that private sector solutions already exist: major platform providers offer robust parental controls at device and software levels (https://developer.apple.com/support/downloads/Helping-Protect-Kids-Online-2025.pdf), and third-party tools give parents granular oversight over their children’s screen time and online activity (https://www.internetmatters.org/parental-controls/). These options are widely available and supported by step-by-step guides.
Instead of state mandates on age verification, Withrow suggested supporting parental education initiatives as an alternative approach. He referenced Tennessee’s 2025 law adding digital literacy lessons in public schools (https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=HB0825&GA=114) and federal campaigns like the Federal Trade Commission’s “Protecting Kids Online” program (https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-use-parental-controls-keep-your-kid-safer-online) as effective ways governments can empower families without infringing on free speech rights.
For these reasons, Withrow concluded his testimony urging legislators to oppose HB 757: “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.”
