App store age restriction bill passes without objection
By Nolan McKendry | The Center Square
Louisiana is looking to join several states in cracking down on access to mobile applications for underage individuals.
Under House Bill 570, teens would need parental permission to download apps like TikTok, Snapchat or Instagram.
The legislation, which passed without objection, aims to give parents greater control over the digital lives of their children by requiring app stores to verify the age of users and confirm parental consent for anyone under 18.
The bill passed the House Commerce Committee without objection.
'Our phones are now the white van,' said Michelle Johnson, a supporter of the bill who warned lawmakers about the link between social media and child exploitation. 'We wouldn't let a strange man lure our kids off the street, but we allow it online every day.'
The bill's supporters, including Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, argue that placing the responsibility on app stores is both practical and protective of user privacy.
Nicole Lopez, Meta's Director of Global Litigation Strategy for Youth, told lawmakers the company backs HB570 as a 'privacy-protective solution' that streamlines parental control without overburdening app developers.
'Parents already verify age and grant permissions when they buy a phone for their teen,' Lopez said. 'This bill would make that process apply to all app downloads, not just purchases, using the infrastructure Apple and Google already have.'
Lopez noted that Meta has already migrated over 25 million American teens into stricter 'Teen Accounts' with limited messaging and default privacy settings. The company says 80% of U.S. parents support legislation requiring parental consent for app downloads by teens under 16, based on polling data.
The bill would also help ensure compliance with the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, which restricts the collection of data from users under 13.
Not everyone is on board. On Monday, critics argued the bill threatens user privacy, shifts liability unfairly to app stores, and may not stand up in court.
'HB570 would compromise the privacy of all users by requiring more data collection just to verify someone's age,' said Aden Hizkias with the Chamber of Progress, a tech industry coalition. 'This shifts responsibility away from social media companies and undermines First Amendment rights.'
Justin Hill, a policy analyst with NetChoice and a former Missouri lawmaker, warned that similar laws in Utah and Ohio have already been blocked by courts.
'This exact bill has been filed and hasn't passed elsewhere. Courts have said forcing people to upload ID just to access digital content violates constitutional protections.'
In an interview, Carver said that the bill has been tailored so that it does not target specific content, such as social media platforms, thereby avoiding a constitutional challenge.
'This would apply to all 1.5 million apps on the stores, so we're not limiting anyone's access to speech,' Carver said.
Hill pointed out that the practical implications are enormous.
'On Day 1, you'd need to submit ID to the app store just to download or update apps. If you want your son to have access, you'd need to prove you're their parent — how do you do that without a birth certificate?' Hill asked.
John Tamny of the Parkview Institute called the proposal 'a trivialization of parenting,' saying Apple and Google already provide tools for parents to manage screen time and restrict access to apps.
'We're pretending parents are powerless when, in reality, they're already well-armed.'
HB570 would require major app stores like Apple and Google to collect minimal information about a user's age and parental status before allowing teens to download apps. Once verified, parents would receive requests to approve or deny any attempted downloads by their child.
However, the bill does not address what happens if a child uses a parent's already-approved device.
'That's something that will have to be left to the parents,' said Rep. Kim Carver during the hearing. 'We don't want to get into the business of telling parents how to parent.'
Supporters emphasized that the legislation is narrowly tailored to avoid the constitutional pitfalls that have plagued other state efforts. Unlike earlier laws that singled out specific apps or websites, HB570 applies to all app stores equally.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
18 minutes ago
Gracie McGraw marks Pride Month, celebrates identity as 'out and proud queer, bisexual woman'
Gracie McGraw is proud to be who she is. The eldest daughter of country music superstars Tim McGraw and Faith Hill spoke out in an Instagram story post Tuesday, refuting recent headlines that claimed she was coming out after re-sharing posts in support of Pride Month. "Hello all!! It has come to my attention that some tabloids have taken an Instagram story I posted yesterday and have used it as click bait saying I've 'come out,'" the 28-year-old wrote. "Let me be VERY clear here….. I've been an out and proud queer, bisexual woman and I wouldn't have it any other way," she continued. "I have and will always be very vocal about my support of LGBTQIA+ rights and the community, but thank you so much to these tabloids for shedding light that it's pride month!!!" Pride Month has been celebrated every June since at least 1970 and spotlights the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, and asexual communities and their ongoing fight for equal rights. "So many people out there don't have the support, love, or understanding from their families when it comes to their sexuality or gender identity, but just know that there is a beautiful community out there that loves you and cares about and for you!!" Gracie McGraw wrote in her message Tuesday. "Check on your people and keep safe out there. Give love to each other." Gracie McGraw is the oldest of three and has two younger sisters, Maggie McGraw, now 26, and Audrey McGraw, who is 23. Their parents -- Tim McGraw and Hill -- married back in October 1996.
The Intercept
26 minutes ago
- The Intercept
How the FBI Sought a Warrant to Search Instagram of Columbia Student Protesters
Newly unsealed records provide new details about the Trump administration's failed effort this spring to obtain a search warrant for an Instagram account run by student protesters at Columbia University. The FBI and federal prosecutors sought a sweeping warrant, the records show, that would have identified the people who ran the account along with every user who had interacted with it since January 2024. Between March 15 and April 14, the FBI and the Department of Justice filed multiple search warrant applications and appeared numerous times before two different judges in Manhattan federal court as part of an investigation into Columbia University Apartheid Divest, or CUAD, a student group. A magistrate judge denied the application three times in March, a decision which a district court judge later affirmed in April. 'It is unusual for a magistrate judge to reject a search warrant application from the government.' 'It is unusual for a magistrate judge to reject a search warrant application from the government,' said F. Mario Trujillo, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. 'And it is even more unusual for the government to try and appeal that decision to a district court judge, who again rejected it. That speaks to the lack probable cause in the warrant application.' The records — which include transcripts of hearings with the judges as well as the government's filings — provide a rare blow-by-blow of the search warrant application process, which, in line with normal procedure, was initially conducted under seal. The materials were unsealed on Tuesday as part of a court action originally filed by the New York Times in May, which The Intercept supported. Columbia University and CUAD did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The government first sought a search warrant on March 15, the records show. The Times previously reported that the Department of Justice sought the search warrant after a top official, Emil Bove, ordered the department's civil rights division to find a list of CUAD's members. For a month, the government argued to judges that a March 14 post on Instagram from @cuapartheiddivest — the group was banned from Instagram in late March for violating community standards — was a 'true threat' against the university's then-interim president Katrina Armstrong in violation of federal law. The post referred to the university's use of the New York Police Department to break up campus demonstrations and the targeting of student activists by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Screenshot from the government's application for a search warrant targeting the Instagram account of Columbia University Apartheid Divest. Source: Court filing 'The people will not stand for Columbia University's shameless complicity in genocide!' reads the post, in part, next to a photo of graffiti spray-painted onto a Manhattan mansion used as the president's housing at Columbia. 'The University's repression has only bred more resistance and Columbia has lit a flame it can't control. Katrina Armstrong you will not be allowed peace as you sic NYPD officers and ICE agents on your own students for opposing the genocide of the Palestinian people.' 'FREE THEM ALL' reads the graffiti in the photo, alongside an inverted triangle, a much-disputed symbol that pro-Palestine protesters in the U.S. and around the world have used. Hamas, the militant group that ruled the occupied Gaza Strip, has also used the inverted triangle to identify bombing targets, the FBI agent — whose name was redacted — wrote in an affidavit accompanying the search warrant application. The FBI agent wrote that the photograph of the graffiti and message in the Instagram post were sufficient probable cause of an 'interstate communication of a threat to injure, in violation of' the law. Read our complete coverage The argument, made in multiple hearings over the following weeks, failed to convince two judges. Reviewing the initial application, Chief Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn determined it was a 'close call' and asked for more information about the 'symbolism and context of the posting,' according to a letter from the government. On March 16, Netburn denied the search warrant application, finding the post 'seemed like protected speech' under the First Amendment, the government letter said. The Justice Department quickly appealed the rare denial of a search warrant application. 'Because Judge Netburn's ruling significantly impedes an ongoing investigation into credible threats of violence against an individual, prompt reversal is necessary,' wrote Alec C. Ward, a trial attorney in the Justice Department's civil rights division, in a March 20 letter to a district court judge. Following hearings on March 24 and March 25, which largely concerned the Justice Department's procedural missteps, District Court Judge John Koeltl referred the search application back to Netburn. During a March 28 hearing, Netburn denied the request for a search warrant application once again. Netburn criticized the government for failing to 'clearly represent what the case law is' around the First Amendment and threats. 'Words that may reflect heated rhetoric, in the context in which they are made would not reasonably engender fear, do not constitute a true threat,' Netburn said, ruling that the government hadn't met its burden to establish that the triangle symbol 'in the context here and in the context of the statement that the president of Columbia University will not have peace, is a true threat, as the law identifies.' The government also hadn't indicated whether Armstrong, the interim Columbia president, herself actually interpreted the statements as threatening, which binding precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court requires. 'We have not had an opportunity to put that question directly to Ms. Armstrong at this point,' Ward told Netburn. The FBI had flagged the post to Armstrong's office, Ward said at the hearing, 'conveying its belief that the threat should be taken seriously from a security standpoint.' Ward compared the post to burning a cross outside a residence, which is not protected speech under the First Amendment, saying the two were not 'exactly equivalent' but still comparable as 'symbolic threats.'
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nutella just announced its 1st new flavor in over 60 years. Not everyone's excited about it.
Iconic hazelnut and cocoa spread Nutella is debuting a new flavor in spring 2026, and it's ideal for peanut butter enthusiasts. The original Nutella, which hails from Italian company Ferraro, is synonymous with the rich taste of chocolate and hazelnut. The new flavor — which marks Nutella's first since 1964 — adds a twist to the original recipe. It's called Nutella Peanut, and, according to the Ferraro website, the new product blends the 'distinctive creaminess of Nutella cocoa hazelnut spread with the delicious taste of roasted peanuts.' 'Developing Nutella and Ferrero Rocher products specifically for the North American market represents a defining moment in our company's history,' Michael Lindsey, Ferraro's North America president and chief business officer, said in a statement. 'These innovations will engage both loyal fans and new consumers, boosting our power brands and further solidifying our position as a category leader in North America.' Another bonus? Nutella Peanut is also dairy-free and, though not marketed as such, appears to be a vegan product as well. This comes on the heels of Nutella's plant-based versio, which launched in 2024 and is available only in select markets in Italy, France and Belgium. While the new flavor won't be on the market for another year, people who have not yet tried the product are already sharing their strong opinions on social media about the vegan peanut spread. 'Hazelnuts to peanuts??' one commented on a TikTok sharing the news. 'So they're making peanut butter.' 'Why do we need peanut flavored nut butter?' another questioned in a separate comments section. Others were unhappy that the new flavor includes peanut, as it is a common allergen: 'Wasn't the whole point of Nutella is to be a replacement for peanut butter for those who couldn't eat it?' one asked. Another noted that they only reason they choose Nutella is that they are 'allergic to every nut' with the exception of hazelnuts. A third wrote that they love that the new flavor is dairy-free but noted they really love the taste of the hazelnut spread. 'Can we have the regular flavor but just dairy free?' they asked, noting that other dairy-free Nutella-like products out there are 'always peanut- or almond-based' with 'no hazelnut in sight.' (It's worth noting that Nutella Peanut will incorporate hazelnut as well as peanut.) Still, others were excited: 'I'm dairy-free so this is a win for me,' one Nutella fan added. Another shared, 'As someone who's allergic to dairy I'm very excited.' Meanwhile, people were also inspired to share their own ideas for the next Nutella flavor. Plenty of people were hoping that the next flavor would incorporate pistachio for a Dubai chocolate bar take, while others asked for white chocolate or strawberry. And, hey, given that this is the first new Nutella flavor in more than six decades, the sky really is the limit.
