Bill requiring app stores to verify age for minors in Alabama stalls in House committee
A bill that would require app stores to verify the age of individuals creating accounts in Alabama will likely not become law this year.
The House State Government Committee was set Tuesday to consider SB 187, sponsored by Sen. Clyde Chambliss, R-Prattville. But the committee did not have a quorum for its scheduled meeting, preventing a vote on the bill.
With just two days left in the 2025 legislative session, the committee would have to meet Wednesday to give the bill a chance of passage on May 14, the last scheduled day of the session, but Rep. Chris Sells, R-Greenville, the chair of the committee, indicated that legislation will be worked on over the summer to be introduced in the next legislative session.
The bill would require app stores to obtain parental consent for users identified as minors before they can download or purchase apps or make in-app purchases. The bill would have also prohibited developers from enforcing disclosures or terms of service on minors without parental consent.
'Apps would have to be approved by the parent and be age-appropriate for the child, so that would take care of the problem of the phones that are already out there, and that's what this is about, protecting children,' said Sells, who sponsored a similar bill in the House.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
A companion bill, SB 186, also sponsored by Chambliss, was passed by both chambers and sent to Gov. Kay Ivey Thursday. It will require smartphones and tablets manufactured on or after June 1 and activated in Alabama include a pre-installed filter capable of blocking obscene material. Sells said that 'will address the issue going forward.'
Justin Hill, a spokesperson for NetChoice advocating for limited internet government control, free speech and enterprise across the country aid 'we all agree on the why' for the bill, but disagreed on the basis of free speech. He suggested that the bill could face legal challenges.
'There are 17 states where this bill was filed, they run afoul of the First Amendment in our belief. And we do a lot of work in this space. We have a litigation team that litigates a lot of similar bills. This one has not made it to the point of litigation yet,' Hill said.
NetChoice has sued or is in litigation with at least 12 states. Georgia was sued in March after passing a law that would require children to acquire parental consent to use social media.
Melea Stephens, a Birmingham marriage and family therapist and a board member of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, claimed to have seen cases in her private practice of children 'being exploited on commonly used apps.' She said that minors are entering contracts with 'multibillion dollar companies when they sign up for an app without parental permission.'
'We do not allow minors to go into a bank and sign a contract because they cannot comprehend the risk involved,' Stephens said, adding that the legislation is 'based on contract law, not content moderation or free speech issues.'
Rachel Holland, a spokesperson for Meta, a vocal proponent of the legislation, said in an email after the bill's passage that they look forward to working with lawmakers on this legislation.
'Parents want a one-stop shop to verify their teen's age and grant permission for them to download apps in a privacy-preserving way. The app store is the best place for it, and one-third of US states and the US Congress have introduced bills recognizing the central role app stores play,' she said in a statement.
Holland also cited a poll from the Alabama Policy Institute, a conservative think tank, suggesting 83% of voters support parental approval in app stores.
Rep. Russell Bedsole, R-Alabaster, said that 'whether or not this legislation is the right piece,' he feels that parents need help monitoring children's behavior online. He said that he uses a service that requires his children to ask for permission before downloading an app on their phone. Despite approving apps that seemed harmless to his children, Bedsole said there was still some unwanted content in the form of advertising or surveys.
Bedsole said that despite these concerns, lawmakers should work with groups like NetChoice to address them because of their complexity.
'We've got to have someone who represents the development of these apps to be at the table, because the technology behind it is so complex that, as a parent alone, I need some help,' Bedsole said.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
ISS, Glass Lewis sue Texas AG over state's newest anti-ESG law
This story was originally published on ESG Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily ESG Dive newsletter. Dive Brief: Glass Lewis & Co. and Institutional Shareholder Services filed a lawsuit against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton last week over the state's most recent anti-ESG law. The proxy advisory firms alleged in a July 24 complaint that the law is unconstitutional, and are seeking a preliminary injunction to stop it from going into effect, according to court records. The proxy advisors are looking to prevent the implementation of Texas Senate Bill 2337, passed by the state legislature in its most recent session and signed by Paxton June 2. The law would require proxy advisors who advise companies headquartered, incorporated in or re-domesticating to Texas to make that advice solely on financial interests and publish a disclosure if ESG or diversity, equity and inclusion concerns play a role in the advice, according to an analysis by law firm Foley & Lardner LLP. Glass Lewis and ISS are seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the law from taking effect on Sept. 1 and claim the law violates their First Amendment right to free association and the First Amendment's prohibition on viewpoint discrimination, according to the complaint. Dive Insight: ISS and Glass Lewis, the two largest proxy advisors in the U.S., respectively, also said — in addition to alleging the First amendment violations — that SB 2337 violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the commerce clause and is 'unconstitutionally vague.' Under SB 2337, proxy advisors would be deemed to have considered non-financial factors if their advice is 'wholly or partly based on, or otherwise takes into account, one or more nonfinancial factors, including a commitment, initiative, policy, target, or subjective or value-based standard based on' ESG, DEI, sustainability or social credit metrics or membership or commitment to certain groups. Under the law, the advisory firm would have 24 hours to publish a disclosure statement that 'conspicuously states that the service is not being provided solely in the financial interest of the company's shareholders because it is based wholly or partly on one or more nonfinancial factors,' according to the bill text. Advisory firms would also be required to explain their rationale in depth. ISS said the bill is 'unlawful multiple times over' in a press release shared with ESG Dive. The firm said the law is based on a 'fundamental misunderstanding' of proxy advisories' role and incorrectly assumes that a proxy advisory giving 'different recommendations to two different institutional investor clients is a problem to be solved for.' 'Serving clients on their own terms is a core value proposition of ISS,' the firm said in the July 24 release. 'Further, complying with SB 2337's mandated warnings will force ISS to falsely state that ISS' advice to its clients 'subordinates the financial interests of shareholders.'' A Glass Lewis spokesperson similarly panned the law in an emailed statement to ESG Dive Friday and said Texas left the firm with 'no choice but to take swift legal action to seek to enjoin enforcement of the law before it takes effect.' 'Texas SB 2337 is an unprecedented and blatantly unconstitutional law that targets proxy advisors and their institutional investor clients,' the spokesperson said. 'It is unworkable and it exposes both our business and our clients to unwarranted legal and regulatory risk.' The firms list Paxton as a defendant in his official capacity. Paxton's office did not respond to a request for comment. Recommended Reading Federal court dismisses ExxonMobil lawsuit against activist shareholder Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
New York Post
4 hours ago
- New York Post
How bureaucrats torture the little guy — and trample our rights
Americans like licenses. People think they make us safer. We license drivers. We license dogs. But most government licensing is useless. Or harmful. It limits competition, raises costs, leaves consumers with fewer choices and blocks opportunity for people who want to work. Michelle Freenor, a tour guide in Savannah, Ga., gets good reviews from customers. But her business almost didn't get off the ground because local politicians said, 'No one can be a tour guide without first getting a government license.' Bill Durrence, a Savannah alderman at the time, told me why it's important. 'I hear a lot of tour guides saying things that make me cringe. The licensing and testing I thought was a good idea just to make sure people had the accurate information.' While they were at it, the politicians added other requirements. Anyone who wanted to give tours had to get a criminal background check including urine and blood samples, take a physical fitness test, pay fees to the city and pass a difficult history test. 'A college-level history exam with tons of obscure, gotcha questions,' Freenor told me. 'It could be three to five months of studying and studying. It was 120 pages!' Ironically, the test asked no questions about subjects covered by the most popular Savannah tours — ghost tours and 'Forrest Gump' tours (the movie's bench scenes were filmed in the city). Freenor complained to a city official: 'There's no ghost questions on this test!' His response: 'Ghosts aren't real.' Why would a city pass rules that block people merely from speaking? 'The city was making a nice amount of money for people failing this,' said Freenor. When I confronted Alderman Durrence about this, he admitted, 'There were a couple of points that maybe went a little too far in the licensing process. Having to have the physical exam periodically. Maybe the cost of the test.' But he's a big fan of regulation. 'Little by little,' he said, 'we've managed to get control of some things, but we still don't have control over a lot.' Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters What? They control much too much. With the help of the libertarian law firm the Institute for Justice, Freenor sued Savannah and won. Now Savannah has no licensing rule. Washington, DC, killed its rule after IJ sued, too. IJ also won in Philadelphia and Charleston, where a court ruled that the licensing requirement was unconstitutional because, as IJ attorney Robert McNamara put it, 'The First Amendment protects your right to speak for a living, whether you're a journalist, a comedian or a tour guide.' Good point. My point is we don't need most of these complex consumer protection laws. Competition alone protects customers. Freenor says it well: 'The free market is taking care of itself. Bad tour companies don't last.' Exactly: A competitive market helps consumers much more than licensing laws ever will. If such laws were once needed (they weren't), they definitely aren't needed now that the Internet exists, because it's so easy for consumers to learn about what's good and what's not. But politicians always want more control over us. Eight years have passed since the Institute for Justice fought Freenor's case. Despite their victories in court, cities like New Orleans and my home New York City still have tour-guide-licensing rules. New York guides are told to pass a 150-question exam. Many tour guides ignore the rules, knowing bureaucrats are not likely to enforce them. That expands the 'illegal' underground economy, inviting actual harm. Government's rules almost always have nasty unintended consequences. Licensing bureaucrats should regulate much less. We're supposedly free people. It should be up to us how we spend our money. John Stossel is the author of 'Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media.'
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Judge allows two additional groups to intervene in Arkansas ballot referendum case
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – A federal judge on Wednesday permitted to additional groups to intervene in a case intending to strike down changes made to Arkansas ballot referendum laws. Protect AR Rights and For AR Kids will now be able to join in the League of Women Voters of Arkansas vs. Jester case. That complaint challenges a host of recently enacted laws by the Arkansas legislature, making it harder for Arkansans to file ballot referendums. Protect AR Rights ballot title to overturn recent ballot title laws rejected by attorney general a second time The motion to intervene was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, Elias Law Group LLP, and Shults Law Firm LLP. 'We're pleased that the court has granted our motion to intervene,' ACLU of Arkansas Legal Director John Williams said. 'This decision ensures that the voices of grassroots groups actively engaged in the ballot initiative process will be fully represented in this case.' Williams added: 'Our clients are already feeling the impact of these unconstitutional laws, and now they'll have the opportunity to stand up in court and defend the First Amendment rights of all Arkansans who seek political change through direct democracy.' Previously, Protect AR Rights had filed to place a question on the Arkansas general election ballot to overturn the new laws. It had been rejected twice by the attorney general's office due to the proposed ballot title being above an eighth-grade reading level, as required by one of the laws passed by the 95th General Assembly. Appeals court reinstates Arkansas ban on teaching Critical Race Theory Protect AR Rights is made up of a coalition of Arkansas Appleseed, Arkansas Citizens First Congress, Arkansas Public Policy Panel, For AR People, the Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP and the Arkansas Education Association. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
