The constitutional path to online safety

Capitol Weekly welcomes Opinions on California public policy or politics. Please read our guidelines for opinion pieces before submitting an Op-Ed. Submissions that do not adhere to our guidelines will not be considered for publication. 

OPINION – In September, Governor Newsom signed into law a bill that represents the single best opportunity we’ve had to make the online experience safer for kids online. On January 1, 2027, operating system providers will be required to provide an age signal to developers so they can provide an age-appropriate experience for young people, who we know deserve a safer experience online.

However, two recent federal lawsuits challenging a similar law in Texas show that Big Tech doesn’t want to do its part to protect our kids. Far from being unconstitutional, Texas’s new law has charted the most privacy-protective and constitutionally sound approach to youth online safety that exists today.

The lawsuits claim the law violates the First Amendment by imposing content-based restrictions. This fundamentally mischaracterizes the statute. The Texas law does not restrict content—it regulates commercial transactions, requiring parental consent before minors enter into contracts to download apps or make purchases. Courts have long recognized governmental interests in protecting minors and supporting parental authority.

Moreso, the Texas law places age verification at the app store level, not on individual platforms. This matters enormously. Platform-by-platform verification creates a surveillance nightmare, forcing families to hand over sensitive personal information to countless websites and apps. Each new platform becomes another potential data breach, another company tracking your child’s every move online.

By centralizing verification at the app store, Texas protects privacy while empowering parents. Families verify age once during phone setup—not repeatedly across dozens of apps. Parents maintain control without platforms gaining invasive access to their children’s personal information or browsing habits. This is exponentially more privacy-protective than the alternative approaches other states have pursued.

The lawsuits disingenuously conflate parental consent with censorship. The law ensures parents—not tech companies—make decisions about their children’s app usage. Parents can approve educational apps, news sources, and creative tools. They can say yes to Minecraft and no to apps they find inappropriate. This simply gives parents the tools to parent effectively.

Many of these apps are a “no-brainer” where kids should be able to access, and the law lets them continue to download emergency services apps, crisis hotlines, and nonprofit-run standardized testing applications. And we know the big app stores already have the technical capabilities to implement this law. Both Apple and Google have infrastructure for age verification, family accounts, and purchase approvals. They use these systems to prevent unauthorized in-app purchases and to comply with existing laws.

Here in California, we’ve learned these lessons the hard way. We’ve watched well-intentioned legislation stumble because it went too far– censoring essential resources for teens. That’s why California passed AB 1043, which takes a similar app store-level approach Texas adopted. We recognized that having young people confirm their age once when setting up their phone or app store account protects privacy without over-restricting access. Governor Newsom was right to sign this legislation, because the alternative serves no one, least of all the families we are all trying to protect.

California’s App Store Accountability Act avoids the pitfalls that have doomed other state laws. The real threat to constitutional rights comes not from reasonable age verification but from the surveillance-heavy alternatives. California lawmakers recognized that protecting children online requires a solution that works with modern technology rather than against it.

The

protects privacy, respects parental authority, and creates meaningful safeguards without government censorship or surveillance. That’s not unconstitutional—that’s exactly what constitutional governance looks like when applied thoughtfully to 21st century challenges. Going forward, the courts should reject these lawsuits and allow Texas to implement what may be the most sensible youth online safety law in the nation.

Charlie Triana serves on the Board of California Consumer Voice, a statewide organization committed to protecting and advancing the interests of consumers.