The Utah Legislature has begun its 2025 session, and in addition to important issues like the economy and education, it will consider whether to prioritize child health and safety by requiring app stores to empower parental supervision when their children seek to download apps.

SB142 would require app store providers to verify the ages of users, prevent minors from downloading apps without parental consent and prohibit app store providers from misleading users about the parental consent policy.

Two arguments have been raised in opposition to this type of bill (including a similar Utah law that requires parental consent for use of social media). Neither has merit.

The first argument is that requiring parental consent for minors infringes free speech.

SB142 would not prevent content providers from making and sharing their views. But it would restrict an app store’s ability to give children unfettered access to harmful downloads. Simply put, the law regulates the conduct of app stores, not their content. Therefore, it does not impinge on free speech.

In addition, the right of free speech does not include a right to have an audience of minors whose parents are unaware of or uninvolved in their use of technology.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld laws preventing children’s access to material that is harmful to them. While the court has expressed concern with laws that define harmful content in ways that may limit adult access to certain types of speech, it has done so with a specific endorsement of filtering technology intended to prevent minors from access to harmful materials. That technology, it is now widely recognized, is not adequate to protect children, and the court is currently considering a case that could approve more effective protections.

It makes little sense to understand the U.S. and Utah’s constitutions to require that minors must be able to engage in potentially harmful downloads without supervision as a free speech matter. Just like it is constitutional to require grocery stores to protect children from harmful purchases if the stores choose to sell beer, it is constitutional to require app stores to protect children from harmful downloads if those stores choose to sell apps.

Additionally, not all apps provide access to speech. Many are intended to monitor users, whether for positive (e.g., health tracking) or malign purposes. Certainly, in these instances, the state is justified in ensuring parents are involved in minors’ decisions that could impact their privacy and security.

The second argument is that SB142 would interfere with parental rights. Most will immediately see that it is illogical to claim that requiring parental consent before minor children download apps violates parents’ rights.

The Supreme Court has recognized that parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children. In the earliest cases to do so, the court invalidated state laws that prevented parents from making decisions about their children’s education. The Utah Supreme Court has similarly recognized this right in the context of terminations of parental rights.

It would stretch these precedents beyond recognition to say that they would invalidate a law that requires parental involvement in a child’s decisions. A parent who wants to allow their child unfettered access to apps is free to do so merely by providing consent.

9
Comments

The exceptions to this right have been rare and focused on instances in which claims to parental rights have been invoked in attempts to get around reasonable laws that promote child welfare, such as child labor laws or child abuse laws. These court rulings are consistent with SB142 because all of them provide reasonable protections to children.

Put simply, parental rights are fundamental because they allow parents to protect their children. There is obviously no right for a parent not to be involved in a child’s life.

In Utah, minors must have written parental consent to access tanning beds, receive state-funded contraception services or withdraw from school. Even parental consent will not overcome laws enacted in recognition of the unique vulnerabilities of minors. They cannot legally drink alcohol, smoke, vape or engage in sexual relations. SB142 simply extends the logic of these child health and safety measures to the act of giving children access to potentially harmful downloads.

The objections raised about SB142 stretch the limits of sound reasoning and should not prevent the Legislature from enacting this common-sense protection. Nothing in our constitutional system prevents state lawmakers from using public policy to promote the ability of parents to help their children make wise choices about technology use.

Related
Opinion: Taking on Big Social Media — protecting kids, one bold move at a time
Join the Conversation
Looking for comments?
Find comments in their new home! Click the buttons at the top or within the article to view them — or use the button below for quick access.