In the online safety conversation, assigning responsibility for verifying a user's age has been a protracted study in buck passing. Well-intentioned requirements to ensure that website or mobile app visitors are of a certain age of digital majority come with a host of privacy, security, and online speech issues. Who is responsible for collecting, processing, and storing the personal information required to prove age? Is it violative of minors' constitutional right to free speech to restrict access to certain sites based on age and the provision of requisite information?
The Shifting Age Verification Landscape
Age-verification proponents have been troubled by these quandaries, not least in the courts, where challenges from industry associations have frequently been successful. Elsewhere, sites including Pornhub have self-censored in 17 states and counting after refusing to comply with onerous age verification requirements and the costs to user rights and their bottom line.
One path forward in the mobile context that advocates for social media platforms and developers frequently offer is to require app store owners to verify users' ages. This proposal has appeal: parents have a straightforward, one-time, trusted, and consistent way to verify their children's age. Opponents argue this would require age verification for every U.S. citizen—not just potential users of minor-directed apps—and the unavoidable First Amendment issues. Further, app stores are limited in what they control: porn sites are already banned from both major app stores, so minors will likely continue to rely on browsers for access.
The bill's passage follows a major concession from Apple in Big Tech game of hot potato. On February 27, it announced a new feature to allow parents to share their children's age ranges with apps through a 'Declared Range API.' Apple remains critical of efforts to position app stores as age-gatekeepers but recognizes the real and growing desire from online safety advocates and developers for it to play the role.
Utah's Groundbreaking Legislation
To date, dozens of state laws require site- or app-level age verification for users accessing certain products. On March 5, 2025, the Utah legislature positioned the state to be the first to require app stores to verify user ages and block under-18 users from downloading apps or purchasing in-app content without parental consent. The App Store Accountability Act, Senate Bill 142, passed resoundingly but faces hurdles before taking effect. The first is Utah Governor Cox, who has not indicated how he plans to respond but passed a similar age verification bill for social media platforms in 2023, which courts blocked in September. Industry groups have been outspoken in the bill's opposition and will litigate thoroughly.
Aside from the app store obligations, the bill requires developers to verify age category and consent status updates from stores and notify them of significant policy changes. It creates a limited private right of action for parents of harmed minors against stores and developers enforcing a contract or terms of service against a minor without parental consent, misrepresenting parental consent information, or sharing age category data. It also grants enforcement and rulemaking to the Utah Division of Consumer Protection.
So Will It Pass?
The primary sponsor of SB 142 contrasted this proposal with the failed 2023 effort, stating it addresses a minor's reduced capacity to contract to avoid First Amendment issues, rather than restricting access to content. Only time will tell if this argument withstands the expected constitutional challenges. In a post-TikTok v. Garland landscape, where restrictions on minors' access to online speech may face reduced judicial scrutiny, and app stores' willingness to take on greater responsibility, anything could happen.
This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.
