Texas Data Law

Insight

SCOPE and App Stores Have Different Litigation Histories

Different statutory duties, challenged provisions, and appellate dispositions.

Litigation and Enforcement · Technology and platforms · Event date: July 24, 2026 (Fifth Circuit SCOPE ruling, No. 24-50721) · For general counsel, privacy leads, and business operators

Two Texas children's-privacy laws went to federal court and came out in different procedural places. Most of the SCOPE Act is now enforceable, with one duty still blocked by an injunction affirmed in part on appeal. The App Store Accountability Act is enforceable only because the Fifth Circuit stayed a district-court injunction while the appeal proceeds. A company that treats the two statutes as one law will misread both.

Two laws, two targets

AttributeSCOPE Act (HB 18, 2023)App Store Accountability Act (SB 2420, 2025)
Codified atBus. & Com. Code ch. 509Bus. & Com. Code ch. 121
Regulated partyDigital service providers that know a user is a minorApp stores and app developers
Core dutiesRegister users' ages, limit data use and targeted ads for known minors, give verified parents tools, monitor and filter harmful contentVerify age at the app store, obtain parental consent for minors' downloads and purchases, pass age signals to developers
Took effectSeptember 1, 2024Statutory effective date: January 1, 2026; enjoined before then

SCOPE: mostly in force

In August 2024 Judge Robert Pitman of the Western District of Texas enjoined the SCOPE Act's monitoring-and-filtering duty (§509.053) in a suit by CCIA and NetChoice (opinion pp. 7-9). A second suit brought by Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT) produced a broader injunction in February 2025, reaching the filtering duty, the targeted- and unlawful-advertising limits, and age verification, while denying relief as to age registration (opinion pp. 3, 7-9). Texas appealed both, and the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeals as Nos. 24-50721 and 25-50096.

On July 24, 2026, a divided Fifth Circuit panel ruled in No. 24-50721. Judge Douglas wrote for the majority, joined by Judge Higginbotham. The court:

  • affirmed the injunction against the monitoring-and-filtering duty, holding that Section 230 likely preempts it;
  • held that the SEAT plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge several provisions, including the targeted-advertising limits, because their injuries rested on speculation; and
  • held their age-verification challenge foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent,

then remanded for proceedings on the merits. Judge Ho concurred in part and dissented in part. He would have vacated the injunction entirely.

The result: the filtering duty stays blocked; most other provisions may be enforced.

App stores: in force by stay

CCIA and SEAT challenged SB 2420 in late 2025. Judge Pitman enjoined the law statewide on December 23, 2025, finding it likely unconstitutional. The Fifth Circuit entered an administrative stay on May 28, 2026 and a stay pending appeal on June 4, 2026. The Supreme Court declined to vacate the stay; a non-vacatur is not a merits ruling. On August 4, 2026, the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in the consolidated appeals, Nos. 25-51073 and 26-50001. No merits opinion appears in the sources reviewed as of October 13, 2026.

A stay is not a ruling that the law is valid. It lets the State enforce SB 2420 while the appeal runs, and the injunction could return if the challengers win. The stay standard weighed the likelihood of success and the balance of interim harms, not a final constitutional judgment.

Why the difference matters

The SCOPE ruling turned mostly on standing and Section 230, not on whether the duties are constitutional. The SB 2420 order turned on which side is likely to win and what interim harm each faces. Neither is a final judgment. A compliance plan should record, for each duty, whether it is enforceable, on what order that depends, and what would change it. The SB 2420 stay is analyzed separately in The SB 2420 Stay: What the Fifth Circuit Order Does and Does Not Decide.

Sources

Related