App Store Accountability Act
SB 142, the App Store Accountability Act, creates a statewide framework for age verification and parental consent in mobile app stores. It requires app store providers to ask for age information when a Utah user creates an account, determine whether the user is a child, younger teenager, older teenager, or adult, and, if the user is a minor, link the account to a parent account and obtain verifiable parental consent before the minor can download, buy, or make in-app purchases. The bill also requires app stores to notify users and parents about significant changes to an app, and to share limited age-category and consent-status information with developers when requested under the act.
The bill imposes parallel obligations on app developers. Developers must use app store-provided age and consent information to enforce age-based restrictions, comply with law, and implement safety features, and they must notify app stores of significant changes to their apps. Developers are also restricted from enforcing contracts against minors without verified parental consent and from misrepresenting parental consent disclosures. The bill creates a safe harbor for developers who rely in good faith on app store data and comply with the act, while also limiting the information app stores may disclose and preserving other legal remedies and security measures.
SB 142 changes Utah law by adding a new Chapter 75 to Title 13 and by making certain violations deceptive trade practices under the Utah Consumer Protection Act. It also authorizes a private right of action for harmed minors or their parents, with statutory damages of at least $1,000 per violation for prevailing parents, plus attorney fees and costs. The Division of Consumer Protection must adopt rules for age-verification methods, and the bill includes staggered effective dates, with the core app store and developer duties taking effect later than the chapter’s general effective date.
The overall sentiment in the recorded votes was strongly favorable. The bill advanced out of both chambers with unanimous or near-unanimous committee support and passed the Senate and House by large margins, with only a small number of dissenting votes on final passage. That voting pattern suggests broad legislative support for the bill’s child-safety and parental-control goals.
The main points of contention are not reflected in committee transcripts, but the structure of the bill indicates likely concerns about privacy, data handling, and the burden on app stores and developers. The bill tries to address those concerns by limiting data sharing, requiring encryption and data-minimization practices, providing a safe harbor for compliant developers, and carving out exceptions for emergency services, security, spam prevention, and other lawful protective measures.
SB 142 adds a new regulatory regime for app stores and app developers operating in Utah, requiring age verification, parental consent workflows, notice of significant app changes, and limited data sharing between platforms and developers. It also creates enforcement mechanisms through deceptive trade practice treatment, a private civil action for harmed minors or parents, and rulemaking authority for the Division of Consumer Protection. The bill affects app store operators, mobile app developers, parents, and minors, and it may influence how digital platforms collect, store, and transmit age-related data in the state.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition in the recorded votes. It passed committee stages unanimously or nearly unanimously and cleared floor votes by wide margins, indicating that lawmakers generally viewed it as a child-protection and parental-consent measure. The limited number of no votes on final passage suggests some concern remained, but not enough to prevent enactment.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s privacy and implementation requirements: app stores must verify age, share age-category and consent status with developers, and maintain protected age-verification data, while developers must rely on those systems and may face liability for noncompliance. Critics could also question whether the law imposes operational burdens, creates litigation risk, or affects app design and distribution practices. Supporters, by contrast, would emphasize parental control, youth safety, and transparency, and the bill’s exceptions and safe harbor provisions appear designed to reduce those concerns.