Testimony in Opposition to Utah Senate Bill 142: “App Store Accountability Act”
Statement from:
Steven Greenhut, Western Region Director, R Street Institute
Opposition to Senate Bill 142: “App Store Accountability Act”
January 28, 2025
Utah Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Standing Committee
Dear Chairman Harper and members of the committee,
My name is Steven Greenhut. I am Western region director for the R Street Institute, a free-market think tank that works on a variety of issues including tech-related ones. I am writing to oppose Utah Senate Bill 142, which would create age-verification and parental-consent requirements for app stores.
One of the basic tenets of conservatism is that individuals – not government regulators – are best-suited to manage their own lives and raise their families. SB 142 and similar bills in other states are well-intentioned, but they suppose that lawmakers and government officials know what’s best when it comes to managing how people use smartphones and tablets.
Under the bill’s language, an app store provider must “request age information” from the person downloading the app and then must verify that information through reasonably accurate commercially available methods. If the person is a minor, it requires the account to be affiliated with a parent’s account and to receive verifiable parental consent before the minor can download or purchase an app. Apple already has “ask to buy” which allows parents to review apps before the child downloads them and Google has something similar.
Our core concern involves security. To comply, tech companies will be required to collect and verify personal information for everybody. That’s why the measure seems likely to get tied up in the courts on constitutional grounds, as has been the case with multiple other age verification laws in Utah. The same basic issue was addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the 1996 Communications Decency Act.
One of the unanimous court’s finding was that the law’s “burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the act’s legitimate purposes.” Yet this bill burdens all adults by providing device filters on all cellphones and tablets and forcing buyers to verify their age. It imposes a burden on all adults to have uncensored internet access on their own devices.
Worse yet, parental consent also requires app stores verify the parent is the correct parent of the specific child. Government identification doesn’t provide this information – neither government IDs nor Social Security numbers. And parents and children do not always share the same last name. Birth certificates may be useful here as are some other very sensitive documents, otherwise the app stores would be liable for getting it wrong.
Here are some other problems with the legislation: First, the bill has easy workarounds, as teens can access anything on laptops or other platforms. This bill applies to app stores across mediums, but people often use existing browsers and this bill doesn’t apply to browser-based porn sites. Parents can already prevent their children from downloading software if they want or put limits on browsers.
Second, it will provide parents with a false sense of security. There’s no substitute for parental supervision and involvement. No technology can automatically do that for them.
Third, it imposes large burdens on businesses while effectively giving the real bad actors – actual pornographers – a pass. Major mobile stores already do not permit pornographic apps in their stores. There are instances where apps attempt to evade prohibitions or find other ways around the rules, but they violate the rules and app stores eventually find them and remove them. It’s a particular burden if app providers must conform to a variety of different regulations in every state.
Fourth, it’s easy for kids to lie on age-verification questions. SB 142’s approach to that problem would require tech companies to gather enormous amounts of personal information. That’s burdensome for them and creepy for the rest of us. And children are already facing serious harm with identity theft. Having to offer their Social Security numbers or other identifying information is a further risk. The top age and identity verifier for the biggest tech companies was already breached for over a year.
Fifth, it would reduce market innovation. We know that competition yields the best result rather than a one-size-fits-all regulatory edict. I think of those federal Do Not Call lists that haven’t worked to stop spam calls, while cellphone company spam blockers have helped thanks to market responses.
A colleague sent me an extensive list of readily available tools that parents can use to manage their kids’ devices. Making laws that require systems provide options that they largely already provide isn’t effective. Encouraging them to use them is better than making government the gatekeeper.
Thank you for your time.
Best regards,
Steven Greenhut
Steven Greenhut
Western Region Director
R Street Institute
(909) 260-9836
sgreenhut@rstreet.org