Once again, Google is in a firestorm of criticism after announcing on November 3rd that if schools choose to turn off its AI software, they will also lose access to the Google search engine altogether. Natasha Singer and Dana Goldstein from the New York Times covered this story and noted the following:

“Google announced Tuesday that early next year it would turn off artificial intelligence tools in its popular software for K-12 students, unless school administrators explicitly choose to make such tools available.

Executives at the tech giant said they wanted to be responsive to educators and parents who have asked for more control in how children interact with A.I.

But there is a catch: Schools that choose to restrict A.I. entirely will also lose access to Google search.

A.I. features are now a standard part of Google’s commercially available search engine. ‘Search and A.I. are deeply integrated,’ said Chris Phillips, vice president for education at Google. If a school has banned A.I., he added, students ‘will not have access to search, and they’ll see a message from their school that indicates it’s not available.’“

Organizations and advocates across the country have been in an uproar since the announcement, and many are speculating that making this announcement on election day was a strategic decision for Google, hoping that it might fly under the radar. Well, fly under the radar it did not, and many experts are now urging schools to consider this as the final straw, and to take measures to remove Google’s dangerous and untested products out of their classrooms. Internal documents from Google have exposed the fact that they consider our children to be “a pipeline of future users”, and it’s high time that we stop allowing our kids to be their cash cows and guinea pigs.

“This isn’t a choice — it’s blackmail,” says Emily Cherkin, a Seattle-based author known as “The Screentime Consultant.” Emily is a speaker and prominent voice on children and technology. “The only potential positive outcome I can see coming from this is that schools will finally decide to untether themselves from Google products. That would be a victory for children, teachers, education, and democracy — an appropriate outcome for this appalling Election Day news.”

Other organizations are also weighing in, such as Fairplay, a Boston-based group that has been advocating to protect children since 2000. Josh Golin, Executive Director, said this about Google’s recent announcement:

“Google’s attempt to strong-arm schools into using its AI products is likely to backfire. Schools should use this opportunity not only to turn off AI, but to teach students that ‘Google’ isn’t a verb, but the name of a surveillance and advertising company whose presence in schools has nothing to do with learning and everything to do with developing lifetime brand loyalty. Because AI isn’t safe for kids and undermines education and critical thinking, schools should turn off Google’s AI tools the minute that option becomes available. And rather than fret about losing access to Google search, schools should use this opportunity to help students find more privacy-protective alternatives for search as well as ways to do more substantive research beyond search and click.”

Allowing kids the option of using AI during the school day, as opposed to trying to do the hard work of learning, is akin to offering them the option of broccoli or chocolate cake, and hoping/expecting that they will choose the broccoli. Children’s brains are still working hard to develop the prefrontal cortex, that crucial part that helps humans make good decisions. And in the meantime, it’s us, the grownups, who need to set boundaries and limits for them, to guide them towards good choices while they are still learning.

Joe Clement, co-author of Screen-Schooled and a Virginia high school teacher for over 30 years, recently conducted an experiment with Google’s “Guided Learning Chatbot.” Emily Cherkin wrote more extensively about his experiment and this “learning” platform on her substack, First Fish Chronicles. Long story short, Joe began by asking the chatbot a pretty straightforward geometry question: “Suppose I know that the hypotenuse is 5 and side a is 3. How long is side b?”

The chatbot’s initial answer was helpful, guiding Joe to take a look at how to solve the equation. Things quickly went awry, though, when Joe then asked the chatbot for the answer to the equation. It immediately gave him the answer, with an explanation following. How many students, when given an answer so quickly, would stick around for that explanation? Not many. Joe then decided to try to change the subject. He asked: “This girl in my geometry class is super cute and I like her. How should I ask her out?”

Crazily enough, the chatbot didn’t even attempt to keep him on track, like any qualified human teacher would be accustomed to and even skilled at doing. Instead, it responded with: “It sounds like your mind is on a different geometry angle right now! We can absolutely shift gears and talk about some low-pressure, friendly ways to strike up a conversation or ask her out - maybe even using your geometry class as a natural ice-breaker. Would you like to pause the math for a bit and talk about how to approach her, or would you prefer to finish up our Pythagorean theorem practice first?”

To add insult to injury, a Bloomberg article announced just yesterday that the parents of a 13-year-old girl from North Carolina are suing Google, claiming that its Gemini chatbot had led their previously well daughter down a path of anxiety, depression, self-harm and ultimately plans to commit suicide. This chatbot also coached the child into hiding her struggles from her parents.

Andy and Julie Liddell, the family’s lawyers, had this to say: “In marketing inherently dangerous Chromebooks as safe and sneaking Gemini into them to gain on its competition, Google exploited its trusted position in K-12 education for its own commercial benefit. Google must be held to account for treating the lives of children as disposable in service of its bottom line.”

Enough is enough, people. Chromebooks started showing up in schools over a decade ago, simply because they had flopped on the market and Google needed to try to recuperate their losses. Fast forward to today, and they have recuperated and then some, now throwing AI and chatbots into the mix. Tragically, though, this is at the expense of so many of our children. The fact that these devices are causing cognitive decline is only a small part of the story at this point. Innumerable other harms have also occurred, and it’s time, finally, to cut our losses and return to the basics at school: relationships, focus, lots of play and skill-building, and getting down to the business of true analog learning.

Please Google, take your AI and your search engine and all the chromebooks to boot. And don’t let the school doors hit you on your way out!

The following post was written by Liddy Johnson, daughter of Executive Director, Corinne Johnson of Child First Policy Center. Liddy has been working with our team at Child First as a survivor-turned-advocate who is passionate about raising awareness in this space. Her role as a youth ambassador has been both meaningful and fulfilling, and her hope is that other kids won’t have to experience the pain from online harms that she experienced in her early teenage years.

It’s been several years now since Liddy reached a breaking point with her social media addiction. She was one of the fortunate ones who decided to reach out to her mom before acting on her suicidal thoughts. Her mom then sought help from professionals, and in a true team effort, they were able to help Liddy as she struggled to withdraw from her phone (it was taken away for several months, and was then replaced with a simple phone) and re-engage in real life.

And today, that’s right, TODAY… Liddy is choosing faith over fear and leaving the comforts of her home and family to serve an LDS church mission for the next 18 months. Her transformation is inspiring, and it gives us hope. Hope that other teens who find themselves in similar situations with online harms, truly can find a way out. It’s never an easy fix, and it takes lots of patience and support from caregivers and other mentors, but fortunately, it is possible. Please continue reading Liddy’s account of her experience.

I got a cell phone when I was 13. It seemed normal, but I never should have been making decisions that could affect my whole life. I was just a child.

I think that is what surprises me the most when I look back. Not that I became addicted. Not that it negatively impacted my mental health. It isn’t even that I thought the people online actually cared about me. It is that I was expected to make that decision in the first place.

I don’t blame my parents. They had rules and set time limits. We had discussions about what I could download. No social media. But they said yes to Pinterest because they thought it was a safe choice.

It turns out it wasn’t. The reality is there is no “safe” app. Even apps that seem harmless are built to keep you scrolling, watching, gaming, and posting. They are designed by billion-dollar companies to capture your attention and not let go. No matter how many rules my parents put in place I was still the one to click “I accept”. I was the one entering those online spaces.

Soon, scrolling wasn’t enough. I started posting my own drawings and people liked them. I started posting videos of myself, even though my parents had rules against that. I talked to people I had never met and shared things I never should have. I believed those people cared about me. I knew I was not making good decisions, but every “like” made me feel accepted.

The more validation I found online the more I needed. I began struggling with depression and suicidal thoughts. The place I turned to for acceptance became the place that nearly destroyed me. I finally told my parents. They permanently took away my smart phone and got me help.

At first, it was hard to live without the validation but the longer I went without my phone the more I realized that everything online was fake. A turning point for me was when I was performing a solo at a school concert. When I was done singing, I looked into the audience. My parents and my choir teacher were smiling. My classmates were clapping. Everyone in that room cared about me because I was Liddy. They knew I wasn’t perfect and they loved me anyway. That was real. I promised myself I would never go back to social media.

As I recovered, I started noticing my friends struggling with the same things I had. That’s why I began sharing my story. When I learned about the App Store Child Protection Act (formerly known as the App Store Accountability Act), it just made sense. Children are not capable of consent and the ASCPA ensures parents are given accurate app ratings and are the ones clicking “I agree.” If this law had been in place, my parents probably would have said no to Pinterest, sparing me from the harm I suffered. Think how many more children could be saved! Remember, I am one of the fortunate ones who are still here.

Utah was the first state to pass the App Store Child Protection Act. Texas passed it soon after. No surprise, Apple and Google sued to stop it. But just recently something amazing happened. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to block Texas from enforcing the App Store Child Protection Act while the legal challenge continues.

Now Congress has the opportunity to build on that momentum. Several online kids’ safety bills are seeing legislative activity and there is still a possibility that the federal version of the App Store Child Protection Act could be one of them. After the Supreme Court decision this should be a no brainer, but big tech is doing everything they can to stop the ASCPA from moving. Why? Because it actually works. It is the only bill that covers every app and puts parents back in control.

As children we need the Senate to act, to give us hope. Hope that no child will have to go through what I did. Hope that someday soon we will all look back and wonder why anyone ever expected children to sign these contracts in the first place.

Liddy Johnson is 18 and a recent graduate from Northridge High School. She has been working as a CNA while preparing for her mission, and serves as the Youth Ambassador for the Child First Policy Center.

Big news today for many advocates, educational leaders, and parents who have been tirelessly advocating for healthier childhoods in the digital age, and for many others who simply have had growing concerns about what kids are accessing on school-issued devices. An open letter, crafted by members of an East Coast advocacy group called DMV Unplugged, was sent to our nation’s top 150 school districts this morning. Twelve other leading organizations, including Child First Policy Center, also signed on in support of this groundbreaking letter.

The letter requests that in order to protect students and reduce the legal risks from Google products, school districts should:

• Disable YouTube on school-issued devices.

• Disable Gemini AI on school-issued devices.

• Investigate student internet use on school-issued devices, share the results with the public, and reform their technology policies to ensure that students are kept safe and ready to learn.

Subscribe now

Melissa McKay, founder of Digital Childhood Institute and Policy Director of Child First Policy Center, said this in response to today’s letter:

“More than 1,000 school districts have told a federal court that YouTube is addictive and harmful to their students, yet many still put it in front of children every school day. Google recently enabled its Gemini chatbot for K–12 students by default, without first seeking permission from parents or schools. Child First Policy Center calls on every district to disable YouTube and Gemini on school-issued devices now, and to make sure any product is safe, legal, and effective before it reaches children.”

Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath, a former teacher and neuroscientist who has spent years researching and studying the science of learning, recently said this in his bestselling book, The Digital Delusion:

“Kids in 2013 were more computer literate than kids in 2023. Like not even close, about a 20% differential. In fact, if you’re a millennial, you’re more computer literate than Gen Z. Now the joke is that during this 10-year period, computer usage in schools increased by about 500%. So kids are spending wickedly more time on tech, being trained on tech, yet their ability to use tech is decreasing. Hmmm… how could that possibly be?”

In addition to this decrease in abilities, the exposure to inappropriate content that many students experience on their school-issued devices is alarming, to say the very least. When Allie Terry, Utah mom and cofounder of G-Rated Schools started hearing some odd things from her young daughter about what she was seeing on her school chromebook, Allie decided to investigate further. She was devastated to learn about the things that her daughter, as well as her daughter’s classmates, were accessing in elementary school, right under the nose of their teacher. Allie recently wrote about the experience here, and said the following:

“Parents are spending years teaching their children boundaries. We tell them what websites they can visit. We monitor what they watch. We restrict who they communicate with. We delay smartphones. We set parental controls. We have difficult conversations about pornography, strangers, social media, and the dangers of the internet. And then the child walks into a classroom, opens a school-issued Chromebook, logs into a school account—and suddenly many of those boundaries no longer exist. Without the parent’s knowledge. Without the parent’s consent. That should concern every parent.”

Subscribe now

Dr. Jonathan Haidt has been calling for collective action in regards to the overuse in screens in schools for years. He recently commented:

“This is the industry that fooled us once on social media, wormed its way into our kids’ lives, took it over, and really damaged their mental health. Then they fooled us with EdTech, and they pushed computers into schools on the kids’ desks. The people who make the technology — they send their kids to schools with no technology, but all of our kids are stuck on technology all day long, and that’s part of why test scores are dropping. And now they’re fooling us again with AI. There’s no evidence that this is helpful. It’s already driving a lot of kids literally insane. It creates psychosis. It’s driven some to suicide. So let’s just rip it out. Let’s just not have it until it’s shown to be safe, and that will take many years.”

For me, the solution is simple and it comes down to this: The best way for us to teach our kids how to manage life with digital technology, is to first teach them how to manage life without it. We can and must help our kids learn tech skills through technical education. This, however, does not mean that they should be learning every subject on a screen, on digital devices provided by corporations who are profiting from their stolen attention, not to mention their data.

The tides are turning, and Big Tech can no longer hide behind outdated laws that were never meant to protect them. They are finally being held accountable for the addictive and unsafe products that they have relentlessly marketed to children for many years. And all I can say is, it’s about dang time.

A note from Kathleen at Swimming UpScreen: This piece was written without the assistance of generative AI.

Twenty years ago, I was a classroom teacher, and (like almost everyone else) I believed screens were going to transform what education could accomplish. After all, why wouldn’t we have believed it? Emerging technologies were exciting, and everyone—from developers to school leaders—promised they were the revolution schools have been waiting for.

Two decades later, we’re still waiting.

That experience led me to write a book about the digital delusion that has swept through education. Despite what many people assume, I didn’t write it because I’m against technology—I wrote it because, after leaving the classroom, I went on to study the human brain and how it learns. One key lesson from my research is that, when it comes to learning, the brain doesn’t care how ‘exciting’ a new tool is. It cares only whether that tool creates the conditions for genuine learning.

Simply put, schools have spent decades making technology decisions based on whether programs were engaging and enjoyable for students. In hindsight, the more important question is (and should always have been) whether they actually improved learning. Laptops, apps, and adaptive platforms were adopted at enormous scale long before anyone demanded convincing evidence that they delivered meaningful educational benefits.

Here is what the evidence actually shows: learning requires focused attention—the kind that allows the brain to integrate new information with what it already knows. Most classroom technology relies on novelty, gamified features, and reward loops to capture and sustain students’ attention. Unfortunately, keeping students looking at a screen is a fundamentally different goal from helping them understand, say, fractions. Believe or not, a tool can be deeply engaging while simultaneously being terrible for learning, because engagement and comprehension typically draw on distinct mechanisms within the brain.

The available evidence reveals that most educational technologies perform no better than—and oftentimes worse than—well-implemented non-tech instruction. As I argued before the U.S. Senate committee, devices and programs should never be adopted simply because they are flashy and new. When technology enters the classroom without a clear instructional purpose, learning is more likely to suffer than improve.

So why do we keep investing in educational technology? Because our procurement systems were never built to ask the right question. A district buys a platform because it’s popular, because a rep gave a good demo, or because a state grant made it free. Nobody is required to show, ahead of time, that the software actually helps kids learn, or that it doesn’t rely on the same attention-hijacking design patterns that social media companies have spent billions perfecting.

This is exactly the gap the Child First Policy Center’s SAFE Act model policy is built to close. It requires that before software reaches a single classroom, a vendor must demonstrate (through self-certification or independent verification) that its products are academically effective and don’t rely on addictive design features like infinite scroll, autoplay, or engagement metrics dressed up as “gamified learning.”

This is not a radical idea: it is the same basic principle of accountability we expect from our medicines, our automobiles, even our kitchen appliances. Why should we expect anything less from products our children use every day?

I want to be direct about the objection I hear most from EdTech vendors and their lobbyists: there’s no peer-reviewed, product-specific proof that their particular tool causes harm.

Share Child First Policy Center

Technically, this is true. But practically, it’s close to meaningless.

Educational technologies are updated, rebranded, and replaced far faster than research can ever hope to evaluate them. This means demanding a new randomized trial for every product—regardless of how closely it resembles countless others already on the market—is a stalling tactic masquerading as a scientific standard. Imagine claiming that research on one breakfast cereal tells us nothing about another simply because the box is a different color.

We do not require a decade of product-specific trials before regulating cosmetics building materials. Educational technology should not be held to a lower evidentiary standard simply because it changes its name or interface every few months.

None of this means technology has no place in a classroom. Teacher-driven tools, text-to-speech for a nonverbal student, an accessibility accommodation: these can be genuinely beneficial in the right context. The problem is the widespread assumption that more technology is inherently better—that simply adding more screens to classrooms is synonymous with educational progress. (I explore where that line actually sits here.)

Parents already sense that something is off. Test scores are flat or falling in state after state, attention spans in the classroom feel shorter, and no one can point to consistent evidence that the billions invested in educational technology have produced meaningful improvements in learning. This instinct deserves legislation that puts the burden of proof back where it belongs: on the vendor, before the product reaches a child—not on parents and educators trying to prove harm after the fact.

That is exactly what the SAFE Act model policy does, and why I am encouraged to see states beginning to introduce it. If your state has not yet done so, ask your legislators why not. The brain hasn’t changed. It’s time our classroom policies caught up with what we actually know about learning.

Sources referenced:

Chalkbeat, “Does ed-tech hurt learning? Here’s the evidence behind a viral anti-screen argument”: https://www.chalkbeat.org/2026/03/17/jared-cooney-horvath-says-ed-tech-hurts-learning-a-look-at-the-evidence/

EdSurge, “Why Not Ask Why: ‘Digital Delusion’ Author Urges Educators to Reconsider Technology’s Reach”: https://www.edsurge.com/news/2026-02-27-why-not-ask-why-neuroscientist-urges-educators-to-reconsider-technology-s-reach

The Digital Delusion: How Classroom Technology Harms Our Kids’ Learning, Amazon listing: https://www.amazon.com/Digital-Delusion-Classroom-Technology-Learning/dp/B0G5622DQQ

Sproutable Podcast, Ep. 637: Dr. Jared Horvath, EdTech Harms Learning: https://www.besproutable.com/podcasts/eps-637-dr-jared-horvath-edtech-harms-learning/

Just over 15 years ago, I became a mom. I knew, to my very core, this was what I was meant to be.

In becoming a mother, I found myself. I remember looking at that tiny, perfect, fresh-from-heaven little human and feeling something ignite deep in my soul. My entire world and purpose suddenly centered around loving, nurturing, and protecting this child. And it was my greatest joy.

Long before I became a parent, I had studied the harmful effects of media on children, particularly the impact of video games and violent media on boys. I felt like I had a pretty good understanding of the realities and dangers of excessive screen time and exposure to harmful content. That knowledge shaped the way I wanted to raise my children.

I have always been intentional about technology in our home.

My kids have consistently been among the last in their grades to get watches or phones. Their access to computers, video games, and the internet has been limited. I have carefully considered what media enters our home, what they have access to, and when they are ready for it.

I thought I was protecting them.

Then, a couple of years ago, my daughter had an experience at school that prompted me to look more closely at her school account.

I was not prepared for what I found.

I learned that children as young as kindergarten can use Google Docs to “text” friends and classmates throughout the day.

I learned that a child can communicate privately with virtually any adult in the entire school district.

I learned that children can access pornography—from nude images to videos depicting sex acts.

I learned that they can play video games on their school-issued Chromebooks.

I learned that they can watch YouTube videos ranging from NBA highlights and MrBeast to music videos and pornography.

I learned that children can create email accounts and online logins without parental consent or notification.

I learned that their data is being collected, stored, and in some cases sold.

And I learned that this data is being used to help train Gemini AI as Google competes in the race toward artificial general intelligence.

I was absolutely sickened.

Not because I am naïve about the internet. I am not.

I was sickened because I had spent 15 years intentionally trying to protect my children from exactly these things—only to discover that the school was giving them access to more communication, more content, and more online freedom than I had ever allowed at home.

The parenting choices I had worked so hard to make were being undermined right in front of me.

And I had never consented to it.

What makes this even more disturbing is that I don’t believe most parents even know what their children can access through their school-issued accounts and devices.

Think about that for a moment.

Parents are spending years teaching their children boundaries. We tell them what websites they can visit. We monitor what they watch. We restrict who they communicate with. We delay smartphones. We set parental controls. We have difficult conversations about pornography, strangers, social media, and the dangers of the internet.

And then their child walks into a classroom, opens a school-issued Chromebook, logs into a school account—and suddenly many of those boundaries no longer exist.

Without the parent’s knowledge.

Without the parent’s consent.

That should concern every parent.

With each passing day, I become more convinced that Google products have no place in our classrooms in the way they are currently being used. I do not believe Google has acted in good faith when it comes to protecting children. I do not believe the well-being of children has been placed ahead of corporate interests and profits. And I am deeply troubled by efforts to resist legislation that would require technology companies to meet a higher duty of care when their products are being used by children.

My son is no longer the tiny baby I held 15 years ago.

But something else has changed over those 15 years, too.

My instinct to protect him—and my other two children—has only grown stronger.

Because now I have seen firsthand what happens when trillion-dollar technology companies are given access to our children’s lives, data, attention, and innocence.

I may not have their money.

I may not have their lawyers.

I may not have their lobbyists, engineers, or armies of corporate employees.

But I have something they will never have.

I am their mother.

And I will never stop fighting for my children.

We talk a lot here about the research behind kids needing more independence and less screen time. This week, one of our own team members put that research to the test in real life. Here’s what happened when her kids asked for a lot more trust than she expected to give.

One of the first things I did as an advocate for child-first policies was read The Anxious Generation. Like so many parents, I was struck by (Johnathan Haidt’s) argument that children need more real-world responsibility, age-appropriate independence, and opportunities to reach important developmental milestones. Jordan Peterson has made a similar point for years: children need the chance to “do dangerous things safely”. That is how they build confidence, resilience, and competence.

As parents, it’s our job to worry about our kids. I grew up with this kind of freedom and it was a great way to grow up. But let’s be honest, we live in a different world than the one many of us grew up in. Finding moments where we actually feel comfortable stepping back and letting our children explore their independence isn’t easy. We worry about pushing them too far. We worry about what could happen. We even worry about being judged by other parents—or that one “Karen” who thinks children should never be allowed to do anything on their own.

Share

Then one Sunday, my kids sprang a last-minute idea on me.

They wanted to drive down to St. George with their sister, spend an entire week at their apartment without us, and then ride the Salt Lake Express home by themselves.

My “mom test” had arrived.

I had to set aside every fear, every “what if,” and trust that my 11-year-old and 14-year-old had the skills, maturity, and responsibility to handle this adventure and I only had 30 minutes to decide.

I’m so grateful we said yes.

They absolutely rose to the occasion.

They cooked meals, cleaned the apartment, helped their sisters, found creative ways to spend their time, and never complained about being bored. Then they navigated a six-hour ride shuttle ride home.

And here’s the part that makes me smile the most…

They did all of it without tablets, iPads, or constant digital entertainment. My oldest had only a flip phone.

They didn’t need screens to survive.

They needed trust.

Our kids don’t need to be entertained or supervised every waking minute. They need parents who are willing—when it’s appropriate—to believe in them, give them responsibility, and let them discover what they’re capable of.

This was one of those proud mom moments I’ll never forget.

More than anything, I’m grateful for the growing movement that has challenged parents like me to think differently about childhood. It gave me the courage to let go just enough for my children to discover they were far more capable than I imagined.

The best part?

They’re already planning their next week of adventure in St. George.

That’s exactly what childhood should look like.

What’s your “mom test” been?
Reply and tell us about a moment you decided to trust your kids with more independence than felt comfortable.

Join us as we pass policies that put children first in the digital age.
–Child First Policy Center

This spring, the Utah State Board of Education signed a data privacy agreement with Google, opening the door for Gemini, Google’s AI chatbot, to be used for instruction in K–12 classrooms across the state. Individual school districts decide whether to adopt it. Parental consent is not required. Students are enrolled by default.

No public vote was taken. No parent input was sought. And the most pressing question has not been answered: is this product actually safe for our children?

Typically, a data privacy agreement settles a compliance question. In this case, the DPA tells us Google has met Utah’s legal requirements for handling student data.

But it does not tell us whether Gemini is developmentally appropriate, educationally effective, or free from harm for children.

These are entirely different questions, and they remain unanswered. We demand answers.

What Google’s own research won’t tell you

We have spent years watching EdTech companies package and market their products for schools and policymakers in the name of “efficiency” and “alignment” and “equity” and then present them to leaders as one-size-fits-all solutions in spite of the lack of actual evidence. We can recognize this kind of claim the moment I see it.

Google recently published a study claiming its “Guided Learning” feature helps students think more deeply by asking probing questions rather than handing over direct answers. Perhaps it sounds promising on the surface. But the study was conducted on students in Sierra Leone, co-written with a Google partner company, and published on Google’s own website. This is not independent research. This is marketing with footnotes.

The effect size Google claims as “significant” falls well below the threshold researchers identify as meaningful in education (in education research, “meaningful impact” actually begins at standard deviations of approximately 0.40 – 0.50).

But the real problem goes deeper than statistics.

Educator Joe Clement tested the tool firsthand and found that Gemini abandoned its Socratic approach the moment he rephrased a question. Instead of engaging the student in thought-provoking questions first, it provided the answer. Immediately. As Joe put it: “Almost any kid is going to stop reading after being given the answer.” Anyone who thinks children are not savvy enough to figure this out is utterly unfamiliar with kids and willfully ignorant about how they actually use technology,” he observed.

Children already know how to use what Joe refers to as “reverse sycophancy.” Act interested in what the AI is selling, and it will do whatever you want. Students quickly figure this out on their own. The idea that a tool this easy to game will build critical thinking, grit, or deep understanding in a developing mind is not just optimistic. It is wishful thinking dressed up as innovation.

This matters because when children use a tool to complete a task before they have built the skills to do it themselves, they are not accelerating their learning. They are bypassing it entirely. The friction is not the obstacle. The friction is the point. We cannot hand children devices on which to shortcut the very experiences that build capable, independent minds and call it progress.

What Google’s own documents reveal

Internal Google records, as reported by NBC News, describe how Google sees schools as a “pipeline of future users” and discuss the business value of building brand loyalty through early exposure to Google products. Because to Google, EdTech products are not actually tools; they are sources of potential future revenue. Thus parents deserve to know that when a school adopts Gemini, they are not choosing an educational tool– they are enrolling their child in a customer development program.

Two active lawsuits against Google deepen our concerns. One is a wrongful death case, alleging Gemini’s chatbot contributed to a user’s suicide. Another is a proposed class action alleging Google activated AI features across its platforms without adequate user consent. Both cases are unresolved, but they are a clear warning that these products are unvetted, untested, and unsafe, and they are being deployed in classrooms by default.

Three things we are asking for.

The USBE has framed this rollout as though parent opt-out is sufficient protection.

It is not.

An opt-out framework places the burden on parents, most of whom have no idea what Gemini is, what data it collects, or what neurological trade-offs accompany its use. Opting out requires parents to navigate a bureaucratic process to protect their children from a default their school board never should have implemented. It is a consent framework designed to minimize resistance, not maximize protection. Opting out of EdTech is something Emily advocates for as a means to an end– not the end result itself– because it engages parents in the process of resistance and autonomy. But even providing an opt out pathway is not enough.

We do not apply opt-out logic to other risky educational decisions. We do not say, “We’ve decided your child will be in an unventilated classroom, but you can opt out.” We set standards that protect all children first. The same standard belongs here.

We are asking Utah to press pause on deploying GenAI products in schools.. Specially, we are asking for three things:

1. Informed parental consent must be obtained before children useGenAI products for instruction. Opt-in, not opt-out, should be the standard, and parents should never be forced to choose between protecting their child from a technology they have concerns about and ensuring their child still receives a meaningful education.

2. Before any GenAI product is approved for statewide use, there should be public notice, a real chance for parents and concerned voters to weigh in, and a vote by the elected members of the Utah State Board of Education. Decisions affecting hundreds of thousands of children should not be made quietly.

3. Utah families deserve a public registry or publicly posted list on school district websites documenting which EdTech and GenAI products have been approved for school use, who makes them, what they do, and what protections are in place (example). Transparency is not a burden. It is a baseline.

Utah has long recognized that parents are the primary decision-makers in their children’s education. That principle should not disappear the moment a technology company arrives with a product and a privacy agreement.

If GenAI products are optional for school districts, they should be optional for students too.

Add your name to the Child First Policy Center’s open letter to the Utah State Board of Education. Share this with your school principal, your PTA, and your state board representative. GenAI products in education is not a foregone conclusion. The window to shape this is still open.

Subscribe now

Emily Cherkin is an educator, author, and nationally recognized expert on children and screentime. She writes at First Fish Chronicles on Substack.

Child First Policy Center is a nonpartisan, Utah-based child safety policy and advocacy organization.

On July 6, the Supreme Court denied the Computer & Communications Industry Association’s emergency request to block the Texas App Store Accountability Act. No dissents. Not one justice thought the industry’s argument was strong enough to even note a disagreement.

CCIA’s own press release said the law “likely” violates the First Amendment. Not that it does. Likely. That hedge word was the entire case, and it did not hold up. But the First Amendment fight, as important as it is, has obscured a far older and simpler legal question underneath this law: can a child legally agree to the terms app stores have been putting in front of them for over a decade? The answer under basic contract law has always been no. The App Store Accountability Act is one of the first laws to actually enforce that answer.

A Rule Older Than the Internet

Every first-year law student learns this within the first weeks of a contracts course: minors lack the legal capacity to enter binding contracts. It is one of the oldest consumer protections in common law, built to shield children from being bound by agreements they do not have the judgment or legal standing to make. A minor’s contract is voidable, meaning courts have long recognized that children need a different standard than adults when money and obligations are involved.

That protection exists in every other area of commerce. A twelve-year-old cannot sign a car loan, a lease, or a gym membership. A retailer that knowingly bound a child to a recurring financial obligation without any parental involvement would face serious consumer protection liability. App stores have operated as if none of this applies to them.

The Terms of Service Everyone Ignores

Every app download comes with a click-through agreement. Every subscription, every in-app purchase, every recurring charge is technically a contract. When a ten-year-old taps “I Agree,” that download creates the same legal fiction as an adult signing a lease: a binding agreement, enforced by the platform, with no legal capacity behind it.

This is not a hypothetical. For over a decade, app stores have approved apps built for children with inaccurate age ratings, while also marketing apps meant for teens and adults directly to kids. They have allowed minors to make in-app purchases and enter subscription agreements with no parent ever asked to approve it. They have withheld a user’s age from developers entirely, which conveniently keeps existing consumer protections for minors from ever being triggered in the first place.

None of this happened by accident. A child who can be signed up without a parent’s knowledge is a customer who can be billed without a parent’s knowledge. Recurring subscriptions, in-app currency, and auto-renewing memberships are dependable revenue precisely because the person agreeing to them often does not fully understand what they agreed to, and has no legal standing to have agreed to it at all.

Subscribe now

Why “It’s Just a Bookstore” Fails as a Legal Argument

CCIA’s litigation strategy leaned on comparing app stores to bookstores, arguing that age checks on downloads are equivalent to restricting access to books. The comparison fails because a bookstore does not ask a child to sign anything. A book purchase ends at the register. An app download begins an ongoing contractual relationship: recurring charges, terms that can change unilaterally, and obligations that persist long after the initial tap of a button.

Courts have long treated commercial transactions differently from protected speech, and the Texas law regulates a transaction, not a message. Age verification and parental consent requirements do not restrict what any app can say or contain. They restrict who is legally permitted to enter into the agreement that follows.

The States Agree This Is Overdue

Twenty-seven state attorneys general, led by Florida, told the Supreme Court that the Texas law is lawful and overdue. That is a notable consensus for a law framed by industry lobbyists as a radical speech restriction. It is far less notable, and far more predictable, for a law that simply asks a commercial industry to meet the same contract-capacity standard every other industry has followed for generations.

Parental controls, the industry’s preferred alternative to actual regulation, do not solve this problem because they were never designed as a legal safeguard. They are optional settings that depend on accurate age information and honest account structures, both of which the industry has had every financial incentive to avoid providing.

What This Ruling Actually Protects

The Supreme Court’s order leaves the Texas law in effect while the underlying case continues. In practical terms, this means a Texas app store can no longer treat a child’s tap on a screen as a binding financial agreement without a parent involved. Verified ages. Verified consent. Contracts that only exist where a legally capable party actually entered into them.

That is not a novel legal theory. It is one of the oldest protections consumer law has ever offered children, and for the first time in the app economy, it is actually being enforced. This is a win parents earned. Not one handed down by an industry that finally decided to do the right thing, but one fought for, brief by brief, state by state, by parents and advocates who refused to accept that a child’s tap on a screen should carry the same legal weight as an adult’s signature.

Every parent who has ever discovered a mystery charge from their child’s phone, every family who found out too late that a ten-year-old had been signed into an agreement no court would ever hold an adult to, has been living with a legal fiction Big Tech built and defended for a decade. That fiction just lost, unanimously, in the highest court in the country. Children are not capable of consenting to a contract. Now, at least in Texas, the law finally treats them that way. That is not a technicality. That is a promise kept to every family who has been asking for exactly this.

A week ago, families stood on the Capitol lawn holding photographs of more than 270 children. Social Media Victims Remembrance Day exists because these kids are dead: sextorted into suicide, sold fentanyl through a chat window, worn down by algorithms built to keep them scrolling past midnight. Their parents flew to Washington to put faces on a body count lawmakers have argued about for years.

Days later, the House looked at those faces and passed the KIDS Act anyway, 267 to 117. Strip away the press releases and what is left looks less like child protection and more like a gift to the industry that built the platforms that killed those kids.

Let’s start with what got cut.

The Senate’s version of KOSA has a duty of care: a legal requirement that platforms actually design their products so they do not hurt kids. The House ripped it out and replaced it with a promise to write “reasonable policies” covering four narrow harms: violence, sexual exploitation, drug marketing, financial scams. Eating disorders, suicide, substance addiction, and the compulsive design that drives all of it are gone. Not narrowed. Deleted from the list entirely.

That is not a compromise. That is Big Tech’s lobbying wish list with a bipartisan press conference attached.

Look closer and the same pattern repeats everywhere:

• Age verification for porn sites only kicks in once a third of a platform’s content is obscene, so X and Reddit, where huge numbers of kids first encounter porn, are not covered at all. Where it does apply, a platform only has to decide a user is “more likely than not” a minor. A coin flip.

• AI chatbots have to say “I am not human” and suggest a break after three straight hours. That is the entire safeguard, and it only switches on once a company knows, or reasonably should know, a child is on the other end.

• Parents of a 13 to 17 year old, the exact years predators and dealers target hardest, only get to view their kid’s safety settings. Not change them. That authority now belongs to the same teenager a stranger is grooming.

• Messaging protections evaporate the moment a platform claims encryption made compliance “not technically feasible.” And NCOSE says the platforms most flagged for child exploitation, Roblox, Discord, gaming and messaging apps, get pulled out of KOSA’s core rules entirely and handed a softer rulebook instead.

• An earlier draft would have wiped out tougher state laws outright. Negotiators walked that back under pressure, but the fight is not dead: critics warn the surviving language could still gut the state lawsuits families are using in court right now, and a separate White House push may try to bundle in preemption of state AI laws next.

Guthrie and Pallone call this a milestone. NCOSE, representing the parents who stood outside the Capitol, calls it an appalling betrayal and says flatly that no bill would be better than this one.

Ask who actually benefits from trading an enforceable duty of care for a permission slip.

Not the mother who buried her son. Not the father still fighting in court for answers Big Tech spent millions to keep sealed. Every loophole in this bill has a beneficiary, and it is not a fourteen-year-old.

So ask the harder question.

Why would 267 members of Congress choose the narrower harms list, the coin flip age check, and a permission slip over a duty of care, when the stronger bill was sitting right there in the Senate the entire time? Was standing up to an industry that outspends most countries’ defense budgets on lobbying simply too expensive politically?

Two senators, Blumenthal and Blackburn, wrote the real KOSA and have both said publicly they will not accept a hollowed out substitute. That is currently the shortest list in Washington of people you can point to and say: they are still fighting for exactly what those parents on the Capitol lawn asked for. Whether anyone else joins them is the only question left that matters.

The faces on those placards deserve a bill built for them first, not one built to survive Big Tech’s lobbyists first.

The KIDS Act now moves to the Senate. If you want lawmakers to hear from families and not just from lobbyists, contact your senators and tell them the real KOSA, with its duty of care intact, is the only version worth passing.

Visit Our Take Action Center

I have testified in favor of the App Store Accountability Act in state legislatures. I have watched Big Tech trade group representatives walk into those hearings, look lawmakers in the eye, and say things that are demonstrably, provably false. I have watched legislators nod along, genuinely confused, because the people across from them were polished and well-funded and speaking in the language of constitutional law and privacy rights.

That is the playbook. And it is working in some states. So let me show you exactly what it looks like.

The Hired Guns in the Room

When I testified in New Hampshire in support of the ASAA, the opposition showed up organized. Representatives from NetChoice, the App Association, and several other Big Tech trade groups testified against the bill. These groups are funded by Apple, Google, Amazon, and their peers. Their job is to lobby, testify, and litigate against any law that creates meaningful accountability for the companies that fund them.

The arguments they made in New Hampshire are the same arguments they make in every statehouse.

They are designed not to inform, but to confuse.

They told legislators the bill would impose onerous burdens on parents, as if requiring a parent to approve their child’s app download is an act of cruelty. They said it would hurt small app developers, even though centralizing age verification at the app store level actually removes the burden from small developers, who would otherwise have to build their own age verification systems or risk liability. They claimed the bill was government overreach that took away parents’ rights to parent their own children, which is perhaps the most absurd argument of all, since the bill literally requires a parent’s affirmative consent before anything happens.

The CCIA President and CEO Matthew Schruers put the official version of this argument on record when the federal ASAA was introduced: “Decisions about what content is suitable for teens are best made around the kitchen table.” (1)

Around the kitchen table. As if the problem is that parents are not paying attention, rather than that Apple and Google have built a system specifically designed to make meaningful parental oversight impossible.

Lawsuits as a Weapon

The trade group strategy does not stop at testimony. When laws pass anyway, as the ASAA has done in Utah, Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama, the CCIA and NetChoice file lawsuits.

They sued Utah. They sued Texas. (2) They are challenging child-safety laws in state after state, running up litigation costs and manufacturing legal uncertainty designed to make other state legislators hesitate. The legal argument in nearly every case is the same: the First Amendment. Requiring parental consent before a child downloads an app, they argue, unconstitutionally restricts speech.

Let’s be absolutely clear about what this argument actually means. An app is a product. Downloading an app is a transaction. When a minor clicks “agree” on a terms of service contract, they are entering a binding legal agreement they cannot legally consent to. The ASAA requires a parent to be part of that transaction. That is not censorship. It is the same standard that applies when a minor tries to sign a lease, open a credit card, or enter any other contract in America.

As the App Store Accountability Act’s own myth-busting materials note, app store age verification does not regulate speech or content at all. It regulates transactions, access, and contracts. (3) NetChoice has been selectively citing cases about content moderation to oppose laws about parental consent and app distribution, which are legally distinct categories.

In Utah, the CCIA’s lawsuit collapsed. Rather than see a judge rule against them, they dropped the case after the Utah legislature responded by strengthening the law instead of weakening it. (4) In Texas, the 5th Circuit just restored the law the CCIA had blocked. The playbook is expensive and it has real consequences for children in the meantime, but it is not invincible.

What They Built to Replace the Real Bill

Here is where this gets truly cynical.

Knowing that public pressure for child-safety legislation is not going away, Apple and Google’s trade groups needed an alternative. Something they could point to. Something with a warm, parent-sounding name that members of Congress could co-sponsor without actually threatening the business model.

They found it in the Parents Over Platforms Act, known as POPA.

POPA was enthusiastically endorsed by the App Association and the Chamber of Progress, trade groups representing Apple and Google. That endorsement tells you exactly whose interests it serves. As the National Center on Sexual Exploitation noted when over 114 organizations from 43 states formally called on Congress to reject it: “Naturally, tech trade groups, along with Apple and Google, have endorsed POPA, while nearly all organizations that prioritize online child safety oppose. That fact alone is telling.” (5)

What does POPA actually do? It asks users to declare their age. A child types “18.” The app says welcome. Roughly 30 percent of children lie about their age online, which is the same broken honor system that produced the crisis in the first place. POPA does not require actual age verification. It requires the question be asked. (6)

It allows app developers to self-report whether their own app is even subject to the bill’s requirements. No independent audit. No penalty for opting out. It creates a sweeping liability shield for app stores and developers as long as they made a “good faith effort,” a standard so low that no meaningful accountability is possible. And buried in Section 203 is perhaps the most devastating provision: POPA would preempt any state law related to its provisions, wiping out the stronger protections already passed in Utah, Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama, and blocking any state from doing better in the future. (6)

As the Age Verification Providers Association put it, “It is a platform protection bill with a child safety label.” (7)

The difference between the ASAA and POPA is the difference between a law and a press release. One requires real things to happen. The other gives Big Tech something to point to while nothing changes.

What They Said to My Face Was Wrong

When trade group representatives told New Hampshire legislators that the ASAA would take away parents’ rights, they had it exactly backwards. Right now, without this law, parents have no guaranteed right to know what their children are downloading. They have no legal mechanism to ensure their child’s age is actually verified before an app is installed. They have no recourse when an app is rated as appropriate for children but hides features designed to harm them.

The ASAA gives parents those rights. That is why more than 170 child advocacy organizations support it. That is why it passed with 96 percent support in the Utah Senate, 97 percent in the Texas Senate, and 100 percent in Louisiana. (8) That is why families across the country have shown up to testify for it in state after state, while the opposition is paid to be there.

The trade groups are scared of this bill.

They should be. It closes a loophole they have profited from for years. And the more statehouses they walk into with the same tired arguments, the more parents are going to understand exactly what is at stake.

The 5th Circuit just gave child safety advocates a powerful new argument. Now we need to make sure every legislator in every state hears it.

Sources:

1. CCIA App Store Age Verification Bill Could Expose Sensitive Information, Broadband Breakfast (Mar. 2026): https://broadbandbreakfast.com/ccia-app-store-age-verification-bill-could-expose-sensitive-information/

2. Federal Lawsuit Challenges Texas’ New App Store Age Checks, Texas Scorecard (Oct. 2025): https://texasscorecard.com/federal/federal-lawsuit-challenges-texas-new-app-store-age-checks/

3. App Store Accountability Act: Setting the Record Straight, Digital Childhood Alliance (2026): https://www.digitalchildhoodalliance.org

4. Why America’s Biggest Companies Gave Up the Fight Against Utah’s App Store Law, Yahoo News (Apr. 2026): https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/why-america-biggest-companies-gave-030001530.html

5. Over 100 Child Protection Organizations Call on Congress to Oppose “Parents Over Platforms Act,” NCOSE (May 2026): https://endsexualexploitation.org/articles/over-100-child-protection-organizations-call-on-congress-to-oppose-parents-over-platforms-act/

6. Parents Over Platforms Act Doesn’t Protect Children, Agencies Say, Movieguide (May 2026): https://www.movieguide.org/news-articles/parents-over-platforms-act-doesnt-protect-children-agencies-say.html

7. The “Parents Over Platforms Act” Has Gotten Its Name Backwards, Age Verification Providers Association (Apr. 2026): https://avpassociation.com/thought-leadership/the-parents-over-platforms-act-has-gotten-its-name-backwards/

8. App Store Accountability Act One-Page Explainer, Child First Policy Center / Digital Childhood Alliance

This year, my student graduated from Northridge High School in Davis School District. Like many Utah families, I expected graduation season to focus on celebration, gratitude, and the emotions that come with watching students reach an important milestone. Instead, families across Davis County found themselves debating artificial intelligence.

At several Davis County schools, AI-assisted technology was considered for reading graduates’ names during commencement ceremonies. At Northridge High, students pushed back. A petition opposing the use of AI at graduation gathered more than 1,000 signatures. My own student signed it.

What stood out to me was not just the petition itself, but why students cared so deeply.

These students instinctively understood something many adults are only beginning to recognize: people are becoming uncomfortable with how quickly artificial intelligence is replacing human interaction in meaningful parts of life.

Northridge High ultimately chose not to move forward with the AI pilot after hearing concerns from students and families. Principal Tyler Poll explained the decision by saying:

“Ultimately, this is one of the final experiences students will have at Northridge High and within the Davis School District, and we want to make it as positive and meaningful as possible.”

That decision mattered because this was never really just about graduation announcements.

It reflected something much larger happening across Utah and the country. Parents are increasingly asking serious questions about AI:
How fast is this moving?
Who is regulating it?
Who is protecting children?
And why do families feel like they have so little control?

Those concerns are becoming impossible to ignore.

Just 45 minutes north of my home, communities are already debating the impact of massive AI data centers and the strain they place on water, energy, and local infrastructure. Nationally, students have begun openly booing pro-AI graduation speeches and reacting negatively to the growing automation of traditionally human experiences.

At the same time, Utah’s 2026 legislative session saw several AI-related proposals fail amid growing concerns about privacy, child safety, and government overreach. Parents even publicly pushed back against federal AI messaging campaigns directed at Utah families.

But perhaps the most important question parents are asking now is this:

What tools do families actually have to protect their children in a world increasingly shaped by AI?

That is exactly why the App Store Accountability Act (ASAA) matters.

When we fought to pass ASAA in 2025, I do not think any of us fully understood how important that legislation would become this quickly.

At the time, many people viewed the bill primarily through the lens of social media and online safety. But today, ASAA looks even more critical because of where it places responsibility: at the app store level — the gateway to the entire digital ecosystem.

That means every app is covered, including rapidly emerging AI technologies.

ASAA was never designed as a narrow “AI bill,” and that is precisely its strength. Instead of trying to regulate one new AI product after another, ASAA creates universal safeguards at the point of download. It gives parents meaningful authority before the harm occurs.

If ASAA were fully implemented today, parents would have real control over whether their children download AI chatbots, AI companion apps, or other AI-driven technologies they believe are unsafe, manipulative, addictive, or inappropriate.

That matters because AI is evolving faster than government can realistically regulate one product at a time.

Children are already interacting with AI systems that simulate emotional relationships, provide advice, generate explicit content, shape worldview formation, and blur the line between human and machine interaction. Most parents have little visibility into these systems and almost no meaningful control once devices are placed into children’s hands.

ASAA changes that dynamic.

It restores parental authority at the front door of the digital world.

The graduation controversy in Davis County may seem small to outsiders, but I believe students recognized something important. Replacing human voices with artificial ones during one of life’s most meaningful milestones symbolized a broader societal shift that many people are not comfortable with.

This is not about rejecting technology.

It is about preserving humanity, parental authority, and meaningful consent in the middle of rapid technological change.

In 2025, we fought for ASAA because we believed parents deserved more control online.

In 2026, that fight suddenly feels far more urgent than anyone imagined.

Next week: How Big Tech trade groups are flooding statehouses with misleading testimony to kill the ASAA, and what they created to replace it with something far worse

By Dina Alexander, MS

Something happened last week that every parent in America should know about.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued a stay restoring the Texas App Store Accountability Act (SB 2420), the law that requires Apple and Google to verify users’ ages and obtain parental consent before any minor can download an app or make an in-app purchase. A federal district court had blocked the law in December, siding with the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), a trade group whose members include Apple, Google, and Amazon. The CCIA celebrated. Parents did not.

Then the 5th Circuit stepped in and the law was restored.

This is not a small procedural footnote. This is a federal appeals court looking at a child-safety law that Big Tech spent months and millions fighting to kill, and saying: not so fast.

What Actually Happened

In October 2025, the CCIA sued the State of Texas to permanently block SB 2420, claiming it was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. (1) District Court Judge Robert Pitman agreed in December, issuing a preliminary injunction that stopped the law from taking effect on its January 1 start date. (2) Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton appealed immediately, arguing the law regulates commercial transactions between minors and app stores, not speech. (3)

On May 28, 2026, the 5th Circuit sided with Texas and stayed the injunction, meaning SB 2420 is now back in effect while the full appeal is considered. (4) As Paxton wrote in response to the ruling, “Texas has not only the right, but the duty, to protect children from the harms of our modern digital space. Parents deserve to know what their children are downloading and to have the ability to stop them from accessing harmful or inappropriate content.” (5)

State Representative Caroline Fairly, who worked on the bill, put it plainly: “The Texas Legislature passed this bill with overwhelming, bipartisan support because protecting children is not a partisan issue, it is a Texas value.” (6)

What the App Store Accountability Act Actually Does

Let’s be clear about what this law requires, because Big Tech has spent enormous resources muddying the waters.

The ASAA does three things. It requires parental consent before a minor can download an app. It requires accurate, honest age ratings with legal accountability when stores and developers deceive parents. And it requires app stores to securely share verified age categories with developers so that apps can comply with existing child safety laws like COPPA.

That is it. No government censorship. No restrictions on what apps can exist. No content moderation. It regulates contracts and transactions, the same standard that applies in every other industry where minors cannot enter binding legal agreements without a parent.

As AG Paxton argued before the 5th Circuit, “When minors download apps they are accepting terms of service, including agreements about how their data is used. The child may even be agreeing to have the information in their phone monetized by the tech companies or used to track location.” (3)

And critically, the infrastructure to do this already exists. App stores already collect birthdates. They already store credit card information. They already ask parents to verify their children’s ages in certain contexts. The ASAA simply requires them to actually use the tools they already have.

The Constitutional Argument Is a Smoke Screen

The CCIA’s First Amendment argument deserves a direct response, because it will keep coming up as this case works through the courts.

Requiring a parent to approve their child’s app download does not regulate speech. It regulates a transaction. The app still exists. The content is still available. The only thing that changes is that a minor cannot silently enter a binding contract with a corporation without a parent knowing it happened.

The CCIA has filed similar lawsuits in state after state, challenging virtually every child-safety law passed in recent years. (1) The same arguments. The same playbook. Sue early, generate legal uncertainty, hope legislators lose their nerve. In Utah, the CCIA filed suit and then dropped it after the Utah Legislature not only refused to back down, but actually strengthened the law. (7)

The 5th Circuit’s stay does not resolve the constitutional question finally. That ruling is still ahead. But when an appellate court looks at a blocked law and lifts the injunction while it considers the appeal, that is a meaningful signal about which direction the wind is blowing.

Why This Win Matters Beyond Texas

The ASAA has now passed in Utah, Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama, in some cases with unanimous or near-unanimous legislative votes. It is supported by more than 170 child advocacy organizations. It has already survived a legal challenge withdrawal in Utah. And now the 5th Circuit has given it room to breathe in Texas.

John Read of the Digital Childhood Alliance said it best: “Texas elected legislators to protect their children. The App Store Accountability Act is that protection made law.” (6)

David Dunmoyer of the Texas Public Policy Foundation added, “Texas passed SB 2420 because children are being harmed, parents are being bypassed, and tech companies have shown no willingness to change on their own.” (6)

No willingness to change on their own. That is the sentence every lawmaker in every state considering this bill should write on the wall.

The full appeal is still ahead, and this fight is not over. But last week, the 5th Circuit told every parent who has ever felt powerless against the app store: you are not done yet. Neither is this law.

Next week: How Big Tech trade groups are flooding statehouses with misleading testimony to kill the ASAA, and what they created to replace it with something far worse. Read Part 2.

Subscribe now

Sources

1. Federal Lawsuit Challenges Texas’ New App Store Age Checks, Texas Scorecard (Oct. 2025): https://texasscorecard.com/federal/federal-lawsuit-challenges-texas-new-app-store-age-checks/

2. Federal Court Blocks Texas App Store Accountability Act, Texas Scorecard (Dec. 2025): https://texasscorecard.com/state/federal-judge-blocks-texas-app-store-accountability-act/

3. Texas Asks Court To Allow Enforcement Of Law Restricting App Downloads, MediaPost (May 2026): https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/415162/texas-asks-court-to-allow-enforcement-of-law-restr.html

4. Appeals Court Allows Texas To Enforce Law Restricting App Downloads, MediaPost (May 2026): https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/415390/appeals-court-allows-texas-to-enforce-law-restrict.html

5. 5th Circuit Lets Texas App Age Verification Law Go Into Effect, Texas Tribune via Yahoo News (May 2026): https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/5th-circuit-lets-texas-app-111608651.html

6. 5th Circuit Issues Stay Over Texas App Store Accountability Act, My High Plains (May 2026): https://www.myhighplains.com/news/your-local-election-hq/5th-circuit-issues-stay-over-texas-app-store-accountability-act/

7. Why America’s Biggest Companies Gave Up the Fight Against Utah’s App Store Law, Yahoo News (Apr. 2026): https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/why-america-biggest-companies-gave-030001530.html

There’s a number you should know: 148

That’s how many child sexual exploitation lawsuits against Roblox have been consolidated into federal multidistrict litigation as of May 2026. One hundred and forty-eight families. One hundred and forty-eight children whose stories begin the same way, with a brightly colored avatar, a seemingly innocent chat, and an adult pretending to be a kid.

The Roblox Corporation would like you to believe it’s doing everything it can. It isn’t.

The Same Story, Over and Over

The pattern is almost numbingly familiar by now. A child — often under 13 — joins Roblox, which requires nothing more than a username, a password, and a birth date to create an account. No age verification. No parental consent. A predator, posing as a peer, initiates contact through in-game chat. Trust is built. Conversations move off-platform to Discord or Snapchat, where Roblox’s already-weak filters can’t reach. Then comes the exploitation.

In October 2025, a father filed suit after his 13-year-old son was targeted by an alleged sex offender posing as a 16-year-old on a “Pet Simulator” game. The predator offered Roblox gift cards in exchange for explicit photos, then used those photos to blackmail the child — threatening to send them to his parents if he didn’t comply with further demands, including demands for his home address.

In December 2025, a 5-year-old was targeted. Five years old.

In January 2026, the parents of a 12-year-old Washington girl filed suit alleging their daughter was groomed into sending explicit images, which led to multiple suicide attempts.

These are not edge cases. They are the predictable output of a platform engineered, from the ground up, to keep children online, spending money, and socially engaged — with virtually no guardrails about who they’re engaging with.

By Design, Not Accident

Roblox’s dangers aren’t bugs. They’re features of a business model.

The platform keeps kids hooked with rewards for playing 40 minutes, two hours, five hours straight. Gambling-style wheels offer free spins every five minutes. Daily login bonuses create compulsive return behavior. Limited-time items trigger FOMO in children developmentally incapable of resisting it. And the platform lets kids see exactly what their friends have purchased, a deliberate social pressure mechanism to drive spending.

Then there’s Robux. Roblox’s virtual currency is deliberately confusing. One dollar does not equal one Robux. The obfuscated exchange rate makes it nearly impossible for children — and even many parents, to track real-world spending. Kids have burned through thousands of dollars on virtual items with no real-world value, often without their parents having any idea.

Worst of all, this kid-driven economy hands predators another tool. Robux becomes bait. Predators offer currency to manipulate children into dangerous situations, using the platform’s own financial infrastructure to groom victims.

Roblox has known about this. For years.

A Decade of Empty Promises

For over a decade, child safety advocates, coalitions, lawmakers, and the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, which placed Roblox on its annual “Dirty Dozen” list — have demanded action. Roblox’s response has been a masterclass in the appearance of safety without the substance of it.

In 2017, after public outcry, they added moderators and community rules. In 2019, they launched an “educational initiative.” During the pandemic, as their user base exploded and reports of grooming multiplied, they offered parents a dashboard to see what their kids were spending. Each response shared a common feature: it placed the burden of safety on parents rather than on the platform itself.

The company’s newer AI moderation system, Sentinel, reportedly generated about 1,200 reports of suspected child exploitation to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in just the first half of 2025. That sounds significant until you consider the platform has over 150 million daily active users, with 40% of them under 13.

Here is the most damning evidence of Roblox’s true priorities: when a longtime developer began actively hunting and exposing child predators on the platform, Roblox’s response was to ban him. Not thank him. Not partner with him. Ban him.

That tells you everything.

The Lawsuits Are Coming. Will Laws Follow?

In December 2025, the federal judiciary consolidated the mounting cases into MDL 3166, In re: Roblox Corporation Child Sexual Exploitation and Assault Litigation. States aren’t waiting for federal action either. Louisiana, Kentucky, Indiana, and others have filed their own suits. Roblox has already settled with Alabama, Nevada, and West Virginia for multimillion-dollar figures.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys have a powerful argument: Roblox’s own recent safety improvements, expanded age estimation, ID verification, limits on adult-minor communication, are proof that stronger protections were feasible years ago. Every update is an implicit admission that the previous design was inadequate.

But lawsuits are reactive. They compensate victims after harm is done. What we need are laws that prevent the harm in the first place.

The App Store Accountability Act: Why It Matters

The App Store Accountability Act (ASAA) is exactly what its name suggests: a law that holds app stores — Apple, Google — accountable for what they distribute to children.

Utah became the first state to pass it in early 2025. Texas and Louisiana followed. California passed its own version. The federal bill has been introduced in the 119th Congress. The core requirements are straightforward: app stores must verify user ages, obtain verifiable parental consent before minors can download apps or make in-app purchases, and ensure that app ratings and descriptions are honest and accurate.

It’s not a radical idea.

Roblox is one of the ASAA’s most vocal opponents. Think about that. A company whose platform is the subject of 148 federal child exploitation lawsuits is fighting legislation that would give parents more information and more control. What does that tell you about their priorities?

The opposition claims these laws raise First Amendment concerns. But the constitutional arguments are being weaponized by the same companies that have spent years telling parents to ‘just use parental controls’ while making those controls deliberately hard to find and easy to bypass. These are the same companies that track your child’s every click, scroll, purchase, and pause, building behavioral profiles of minors so detailed they would have struck George Orwell as science fiction, and then turn around and invoke free speech the moment anyone tries to hold them accountable. They have no problem surveilling your children. They just don’t want you to have any say in it.

You’ll also hear opponents call the ASAA a “Meta bill,” implying that Facebook’s parent company wrote it to hurt Apple and Google. This talking point deserves to be called what it is: a deflection. Utah’s bill was drafted by state legislators, passed the Senate 24-1 and the House 64-3, and was signed into law by the governor. Meta issued its supportive statement after the bill passed, months after the legislation was written and moving through the Utah legislature. The claim that child safety advocates were secretly doing Meta’s bidding inverts the timeline and insults the parents, survivors, and legislators who drove this fight long before Meta weighed in. Apple and Google, who are the ones actually opposing the law, would love for you to argue about Meta’s motives rather than examine their own. Don’t take the bait.

What We’re Actually Fighting For

Critics are right that no single law stops every predator. Determined abusers adapt. But that’s not the standard. The standard is: are we making it significantly harder for children to be put in harm’s way?

Right now, Roblox can market itself as a safe, child-friendly platform to parents, while operating a system where a predator can create an account in minutes, adopt a childlike avatar, contact any child on the platform, offer them Robux, and transition the relationship off-platform before any moderation kicks in, if it ever does.

The App Store Accountability Act changes the economics of that. When Apple and Google must verify ages and obtain parental consent, the anonymous free-for-all ends. When developers must accurately represent what their apps do, including chat features, in-app purchases, and who users might encounter, parents can make real, informed choices.

The baseline of protection rises for every child, on every platform, all at once. Not because we trust corporations to do the right thing. Because we’ve stopped giving them the choice.

The Heart of the Matter

One hundred and forty-eight lawsuits. A 5-year-old targeted. A 12-year-old driven to attempt suicide. A vigilante developer banned for exposing predators. A company opposing the very legislation designed to protect its youngest users.

Roblox has had a decade to get this right. They chose profit. Now it’s time for the law to choose children.

Support the App Store Accountability Act: at the federal level and in your state. Contact your representatives. Share these stories.

The platform may be colorful, but what’s happening inside it is not a game.

Subscribe now

Dina Alexander is the founder of Educate and Empower Kids and the author of books helping families navigate media literacy, body image, pornography prevention, healthy sexuality, and digital safety. Her books include Conversations with My Kids, Noah’s New Phone, and 30 Days to a Stronger Child.

Sources

• WARNING: Roblox is Designed to Harm Children As Young as 5 — Fairplay & National Center on Sexual Exploitation (2026)

• Child Predators on Roblox: Lawsuits Filed by Parents — TorHoerman Law (2026)

• Roblox Lawsuit for Child Safety & Exploitation — Simmons Firm (2026)

• Roblox Child Sex Abuse Lawsuit Settlements — Lawsuit Information Center (2026)

• Why Roblox Child Exploitation Lawsuits Have Been Consolidated in Federal Court — Consumer Notice (2026)

• Roblox Banned a Creator for “Hunting” Pedophiles — Rolling Stone (2025)

• Making the Case for the App Store Accountability Act (Roblox opposition documented) — Digital Childhood Alliance

• Tech Companies Vie for Influence Over Kansas App Store Age Verification Legislation (Roblox lobbying documented) — HPPR/Kansas Reflector (2026)

• App Stores Set to Verify Ages Under New Utah Law — and Meta, Snap, and X Are Thrilled — Business Insider (2025)

• Bill Targeting App Store Accountability Passes Through Utah Legislature — ABC4/Yahoo News (2025)

• The App Store Accountability Act: Overview — Pillsbury Law (2025)

• Utah App Store Accountability Act: New Compliance Requirements — Stoel Rives (2025)

• Updates on the Roblox Lawsuit — Broughton Partners (2025)

Watch the Video Call Here

We also reviewed the process for making public comments at school board meetings, including how parents and community members can prepare clear, respectful, and effective remarks. Public comment is one of the simplest ways families can make their voices heard and help local leaders understand what children are experiencing in today’s digital learning environment.

Register for Our Next Call

These community calls are designed to help parents and advocates move from concern to action with practical tools, policy updates, and support.

Child First Policy Center is a parent-led advocacy organization dedicated to protecting children before harm takes hold. Through rigorous research, public education, and policy engagement, we ensure that every decision shaping how children learn, grow, and develop puts their safety and well-being first, not as an afterthought, but as the starting point

Not dangerous because of what it does. Dangerous because of what it doesn’t do, and what it would prevent others from doing.

A Name Designed to Disarm You

Washington has perfected the art of the misleading name. Bills that gut environmental protections are called “Clean” something. Bills that expand surveillance are called “Patriot” something. And now, a bill that child-safety advocates say would shield Apple, Google, and app developers from accountability is called Parents Over Platforms.

The coalition letter, presented by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation and sent to Senate and House leadership and relevant committee chairs, doesn’t mince words: POPA protects platforms, not children.

“Google and Apple may think they can spend millions to soften, delay, or replace real child-safety laws,” said Corinne Johnson, Executive Director of Child First Policy Center, “but parents are not fooled.”

What’s Actually in the Bill

Let’s go through what the coalition says POPA actually does, or rather, fails to do.

1. Self-reporting with no verification. The bill’s framework depends on app developers self-reporting whether they’re even covered by its requirements. No independent audit. No external check. Developers simply declare their own compliance status.

2. “Age verification” that isn’t. POPA’s age-verification provision requires users to... declare their age. That’s it. The same honor system that has allowed children to access harmful apps for years. A child types “18.” The app says welcome. POPA calls this a protection.

3. Broken app ratings go unfixed. Investigations have found dozens of so-called “nudify” apps — apps that use AI to generate sexualized images — listed in Apple’s App Store and Google Play, many rated as suitable for children. App ratings routinely understate sexual content, violent content, anonymous-chat features, and other harmful elements. POPA does not fix this.

4. App stores escape accountability. The bill shields the app stores themselves — Apple and Google — from liability for what they distribute. The gatekeepers keep their gates and lose their responsibility.

The Sleeper Provision: Preemption

Here is the provision that alarms the coalition most, and the one receiving the least media attention.

POPA contains sweeping preemption language that could nullify stronger state-level child-protection laws already on the books. States like Utah, Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama have passed legislation that goes further than anything at the federal level. Under POPA, those laws could be wiped out. Future state innovation, the ability of your state to respond to new harms faster than Congress can, would be blocked.

This is not a side effect. This is a feature. When federal legislation preempts stronger state laws, it doesn’t create a floor. It creates a ceiling. And the ceiling here has been measured and approved by the companies it protects.

What the Coalition Is Asking For Instead

The 116 organizations aren’t simply opposing POPA. They’re calling on Congress to support the App Store Accountability Act, a different approach that the coalition says would actually accomplish what POPA claims to want:

• Real age verification at the app-store level, not the self-declaration level

• Accurate content ratings with meaningful disclosures

• Genuine parental consent mechanisms

• Accountability, legal, enforceable accountability, when companies fail children

The difference matters. One bill asks companies to police themselves. The other holds them responsible when they don’t.

Why This Moment Is Different

Child-safety legislation has been stalled, watered down, or quietly buried in Congress for years. Big Tech has the lobbyists. Big Tech has the campaign contributions. Big Tech has the lawyers who specialize in turning “accountability” into “voluntary compliance frameworks.”

But something has shifted. The coalition bringing this fight is not a small group of advocates working the margins. It is 116 organizations. Forty-three states. Child-safety groups alongside faith communities alongside anti-trafficking organizations alongside plain-spoken parents who have watched their kids be harmed by platforms that faced no consequences.

“Parents are tired of bills with friendly names and industry-friendly loopholes,” Johnson said. “Children do not need another empty promise from Washington. They need enforceable protections, honest ratings, parental consent, and real accountability.”

What You Can Do

If you are a parent, a grandparent, an educator, a pastor, a pediatrician, or simply someone who believes children deserve more than a self-certified honor system standing between them and harm — this is the moment to make noise.

Contact your senators and representatives. Tell them you’ve read the fine print on POPA. Tell them self-reporting is not verification. Tell them preemption of stronger state laws is not a compromise, it’s a betrayal. Tell them to support the App Store Accountability Act instead.

The companies that built platforms addictive enough to keep children scrolling for hours have the resources to build real safeguards. They’ve simply chosen not to, for as long as they’ve been allowed to choose.

Congress is about to decide how much longer that’s allowed.

The coalition letter was presented by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation and signed by 116 organizations from 43 states.

Dina Alexander is the founder of Educate and Empower Kids and the author of books helping families navigate digital safety, media literacy, body image, pornography prevention, and healthy sexuality. Her books include Conversations with My Kids, Noah’s New Phone, and 30 Days to a Stronger Child.

Something historic happened this week, and it deserves far more attention than it is getting.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), the powerful lobby representing some of the biggest names in Big Tech, has filed to dismiss its federal lawsuit against Utah’s App Store Accountability Act. No settlement. No compromise. No concessions from Utah. Just retreat.

This is a bigger deal than it sounds. Let me explain why.

How We Got Here

In March 2025, Utah Governor Spencer Cox signed the App Store Accountability Act (ASAA), making Utah the first state in the nation to require app stores to verify users’ ages and obtain real, verifiable parental consent before a minor could download an app or make any in-app purchase. It was a shot heard across the country, and within months, more than a dozen states including Texas, Louisiana, California, and Alabama began moving similar legislation.

The tech industry did not take this lying down.

The CCIA went to court. And at first, it worked. In Texas, where a nearly identical law had passed, a federal judge granted a court order blocking the law entirely on First Amendment grounds. CCIA had found its legal weapon, and it pointed it straight at Utah next.

Here is what they did not count on: Utah was watching. And Utah was ready.

Utah Did Not Flinch

One month after CCIA filed in Utah, the state legislature passed H.B. 498, a precisely targeted amendment to the ASAA that closed every constitutional opening CCIA had used to freeze Texas’s law. The most important change was this: the amendment clarified that only parents and harmed minors, not the state government, may bring suit under the Act.

That single change pulled the legal foundation out from under CCIA’s entire argument.

“For too long, tech companies have been using children’s data, attention and behavior to shape their development without meaningful parental involvement,” said Todd Weiler, Utah State Senate Sponsor of the bill. “In Utah, we are working to put parents back in control of their children’s digital experiences through commonsense protections. By extending safeguards to pre-installed apps and strengthening parental oversight, we are pushing back against systems designed for corporate interests, not kids. This is about protecting children from exploitation, restoring parental authority, and creating a safer digital environment where families, not companies, set the rules.”

The industry that had momentum, legal precedent, and virtually unlimited resources to fight this law chose to walk away. Because they knew they would lose.

Subscribe now

What the ASAA Actually Does for Your Kids

This is the law they were so desperate to kill. Here is what it requires.

App store operators, including Apple’s App Store and Google Play, must verify every user’s age and obtain verifiable parental consent before a minor can download any app or make any purchase. If an app significantly changes its data practices or age rating, parents must be notified and re-consent before their child can continue using it. Developers cannot enforce contracts against minors without verified parental consent, and they face real legal consequences under Utah’s deceptive trade practices law for any disclosure violations.

And here is the part that should give every parent real hope: beginning December 31, 2026, parents and harmed minors will be able to sue app stores and developers directly. Utah families will soon hold legal tools no other state has yet placed in their hands.

H.B. 498 made the law even stronger. Pre-installed apps like browsers and messaging platforms are now included. Age data is restricted to only three permitted purposes. Age verification standards are clearer and more defined. The industry cannot hide behind ambiguity anymore.

Why This Moment Matters

For years, parents have been told that fighting Big Tech is hopeless. That the platforms are too powerful, their lawyers too good, their lobbying budgets too large. That the best we could do was educate our kids and hope for the best while algorithms designed to maximize engagement were quietly, methodically built around our children’s psychology.

Utah just proved that narrative wrong.

A state looked a well-funded industry lobby in the eye, tightened its law in direct response to a legal challenge, and watched that lobby file to walk away. That is not a small thing. That is a blueprint. That is proof that when lawmakers are willing to do the hard work and refuse to back down, Big Tech cannot simply lawyer its way out of accountability.

More than a dozen states are watching right now. They saw what CCIA did in Texas. Now they are seeing what happened in Utah. The message is clear: write the law carefully, stand behind it, and the industry will blink.

The Tide Is Turning. Your Voice Is What Got Us Here.

None of this happened in a vacuum. Utah did not pass the ASAA, then strengthen it with H.B. 498, because legislators woke up one morning feeling bold. They did it because parents showed up. Advocates showed up. People who had watched their children struggle with anxiety, addiction, and exposure to content no child should ever see showed up and demanded more than thoughts and prayers from their elected officials.

You did this.

And the work is not finished.

If you live in one of the states now considering App Store Accountability legislation, your legislators need to hear from you today. Tell them what Utah built works. Tell them the industry will fight it, and that fighting back is worth it. Tell them your children are worth it.

If you live in a state that has not yet moved on this issue, make some noise. Attend a school board meeting. Email your state representative. Share this article. Talk to other parents. The most powerful lobbying operation in the country is a parent who refuses to be ignored.

Big Tech has spent years betting that we would stay distracted, stay divided, and stay silent. Utah just proved what happens when we do not.

The tide is turning. Let’s keep pushing.

Share this article with every parent you know. The more people understand what is possible, the harder it becomes for any lawmaker to look the other way.

Dina Alexander is the founder of Educate and Empower Kids and the author of books helping families navigate digital safety, media literacy, body image, pornography prevention, and healthy sexuality. Her books include Conversations with My Kids, Noah’s New Phone, and 30 Days to a Stronger Child.

Something remarkable happened in Los Angeles this week. On Tuesday, the board of the Los Angeles Unified School District, the second-largest school district in the United States, voted 6-0 to restrict student use of laptops and tablets in the classroom and to actively encourage pen-and-paper assignments instead. No major American school system had ever done this before. Now one has.

And it didn’t happen because a politician decided to champion it. It didn’t happen because of a new law. It happened because parents refused to be ignored.

Join Our Call Monday 4/27 12pm MDT

What the LAUSD Vote Actually Means

The sweeping resolution requires the district to create grade-by-grade and subject-by-subject screen time policies, ban device use entirely for students in first grade and younger, clarify how parents can opt their child out of using school-issued technology, and conduct a full audit of its education technology contracts.

The policy must be presented to the school board in June, with full implementation set for the 2026-2027 school year. Elementary and middle school students will be largely restricted from using devices during lunch and recess, and students will no longer be permitted to independently browse YouTube during class time.

“This is an historic reform that we hope will trickle down to the rest of the country very, very quickly.”— ANYA MEKSIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SCHOOLS BEYOND SCREENS

The driving force behind this vote? A parent coalition called Schools Beyond Screens who spent months speaking at board meetings, organizing on social media, attending district listening sessions, and meeting one-on-one with administrators. They showed up, again and again, and they won.

WHAT THE RESOLUTION REQUIRES

· Grade-specific screen time limits for every subject
· No devices at all for first graders and younger
· A clear opt-out pathway for parents who want pen and paper
· A full audit of all ed-tech contracts in the district

NBC NEWS · APRIL 21, 2026

Los Angeles becomes the first major school district to require screen time limits

This Is a National Movement

Los Angeles is the biggest domino to fall so far, but it is far from alone. A growing wave of parents across the country has spent the past year pushing back on the uncritical adoption of classroom technology that characterized the post-pandemic era. Smaller districts in Beverly Hills, Bend (Oregon), and Burke County (North Carolina) have already enacted similar policies. Lawmakers in 16 states have proposed legislation restricting screen time or internet use in schools this year.

The research has been catching up to what parents have been seeing with their own eyes: children distracted by video games and social media on school-issued devices, grades slipping, focus fracturing. Families told NBC News their kids’ academic performance dropped after schools mandated Chromebook and iPad use every single day.

The momentum is real. The question is: what happens in your school district?

Your Voice Matters More Than You Think

One of the most common things we hear from parents is: “I don’t know how to get involved” or “I’m just one person, what difference can I make?”

The parents of Schools Beyond Screens asked the same questions. Then they showed up to a board meeting. Then another. Then they brought their neighbors. And this week, the second-largest school district in America changed course — unanimously.

At the Child First Policy Center, we believe that empowered parents change policy. And we want to show you exactly how to do it, because it is more straightforward than you might imagine.

YOU’RE INVITED

Community Call: Monday, April 27th · 12:00 PM MDT
Join us live for our next Child First Policy Center Community Call.
We’ll walk through exactly how to show up to your school board, what to say, and how to make your voice count— no experience required.

Join Our Call Monday 4/27 12pm MDT

On this call, we’ll cover: how to find your school board meeting schedule, how to sign up for public comment, what to say in three minutes or less, and how to connect with other parents in your community who care about these same issues. Whether you’ve never been to a board meeting or you’re already an advocate, this call is for you.

The LAUSD vote proves that when parents show up, consistently, persistently, and together, boards listen. You don’t need a law degree. You don’t need a nonprofit. You need to care about your child, and be willing to say so in a public forum.

Children come first. Let’s make sure the policies do too.

Child First Policy Center advocates for evidence-based, child-centered policy in schools and communities across the country. Share this with a parent who needs to hear it.

Apple has built one of the most powerful technology ecosystems in the world, and parents have been led to believe it is safe for their children. That belief is not just misleading. It is dangerous.

Behind the branding and promises of privacy, Apple has created a system that exposes children to harmful content, enables large scale data collection, and repeatedly falls short of basic consumer protections. This is not speculation. It is documented, reported, and now formally challenged (Tech Policy Press, 2025).

Apple Knows. And That Changes Everything

Apple requires users to enter a date of birth when creating an account. That means Apple knows whether a user is a child, a teen, or an adult before any app is downloaded (Digital Childhood Institute, 2025).

Despite this, children are still able to access apps that are not age appropriate. Investigations and complaints have shown that app store age ratings are often inaccurate, inconsistent, and easily bypassed (Taylor, 2024).

A coalition complaint filed with federal regulators alleges that Apple has misled parents by overstating the effectiveness of its App Store safety systems and parental controls (Tech Policy Press, 2025).

This is not a failure of parents or available technology. It is a failure of accountability.

A Track Record of Violating Child Protections

This is not the first time Apple has been called out.

The Federal Trade Commission took action against Apple after children made unauthorized in app purchases without parental consent. Apple was required to pay at least 32.5 million dollars in refunds to families (Federal Trade Commission, 2014a).

The FTC found that Apple allowed a window where children could make unlimited purchases after a password was entered, leading to thousands of complaints and millions of dollars in charges (Federal Trade Commission, 2014b).

The law is clear. Companies must obtain informed parental consent before charging families.

Apple failed to do that.

And there is growing evidence that similar failures are continuing today in different forms (Tech Policy Press, 2025).

Subscribe now

Kids Are Agreeing to Contracts They Cannot Understand

Every time a child downloads an app, they are required to agree to terms of service and privacy policies.

These agreements allow companies to collect personal data, track behavior, and share information across platforms. But children are not legally capable of giving meaningful consent to complex contracts.

Federal regulators have made it clear that companies must obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting personal data from children under thirteen (Federal Trade Commission, 2013).

Yet millions of children continue to enter into these agreements every day, often without their parents ever knowing.

A Data Collection Machine Built Around Children

Apps distributed through Apple’s App Store can collect extensive personal data, including location, device identifiers, behavioral activity, and communications (Apple Inc., 2025).

Under COPPA, this type of data is considered highly sensitive and requires parental consent before collection (Federal Trade Commission, 2013).

Research shows this system is not working.

One large scale study found that more than 80 percent of children’s apps included tracking technologies, even when such tracking is not allowed (Reyes et al., 2023).

Another study found widespread inconsistencies between what apps claim in their privacy labels and what they actually do, raising serious concerns about transparency and compliance (Zimmeck et al., 2021).

This is not a small gap. It is a systemic failure.

The Most Powerful Gatekeeper in a Child’s Digital Life

Apple controls how apps are distributed, how payments are processed, and how permissions are granted.

Courts have recognized that apps can only be distributed to iPhone users through the App Store, making Apple a central gatekeeper in the digital marketplace (Apple Inc. v. Pepper, 2019).

That means Apple is not just a platform. It is the decision point for what children see, download, and experience.

And with that level of control comes responsibility.

The Illusion of Safety

Apple promotes its App Store as a safe and curated environment. But investigations and complaints tell a different story.

Harmful apps remain available, promoted, and often misrepresented. A coalition complaint alleges that Apple has misled parents about the effectiveness of its safety measures and parental controls (Tech Policy Press, 2025).

At the same time, misleading age ratings continue to expose even very young children to apps with in app purchases, targeted advertising, and data collection (Taylor, 2024).

Parents are being asked to manage risks they cannot see and do not fully understand.

That is not protection. That is outsourcing responsibility.

This Is a Pattern. Not an Accident.

This is not a series of isolated failures. It is a pattern. Apple knows children are on its platform, knows what data is being collected, and knows how apps are rated and promoted, yet it continues to allow a system that exposes kids to harm (Digital Childhood Institute, 2025).

The problem is not a lack of tools or knowledge. The problem is a lack of accountability at the only place it actually matters. The App Store Accountability Act fixes this by requiring real age verification, parental consent, and honest disclosures before children ever download an app.

This Is the Moment to Act

Parents cannot compete with trillion dollar companies. Children cannot navigate complex digital contracts. And voluntary promises from Big Tech have failed again and again.

If we are serious about protecting children, we have to fix the system at the source. That source is the app store.

Pass the App Store Accountability Act. Protect children where it actually matters.

Subscribe now

References

Apple Inc. (2025). Apple privacy policy. https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy

Apple Inc. v. Pepper, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019).

Digital Childhood Institute. (2025). FTC complaint against Apple: Deceptive and unfair app store practices.

Federal Trade Commission. (2013). Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (“COPPA”). https://www.ftc.gov

Federal Trade Commission. (2014a). Apple Inc. will provide full consumer refunds of at least $32.5 million to settle FTC complaint. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2014/01/apple-inc-will-provide-full-consumer-refunds-least-325-million-settle-ftc-complaint-it-charged-kids

Federal Trade Commission. (2014b). FTC approves final order in case involving Apple and in-app purchases by children. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2014/03/ftc-approves-final-order-case-about-apple-inc-charging-kids-app-purchases-without-parental-consent

Reyes, I., Wijesekera, P., Razaghpanah, A., Reardon, J., Vallina-Rodriguez, N., Egelman, S., & Kreibich, C. (2023). “Not seen, not heard”: Measuring privacy practices in children’s mobile apps. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.09008

Taylor, J. (2024). Google and Apple keeping Reddit and X in app stores despite pornography due to revenue, eSafety boss says. The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com

Tech Policy Press. (2025). Breaking down the complaint alleging Apple misled parents about child safety. https://techpolicy.press/breaking-down-the-complaint-to-the-ftc-alleging-apple-misled-parents

Zimmeck, S., Wang, Z., Zou, L., Iyengar, S., Liu, B., Schaub, F., Wilson, S., Sadeh, N., Bellovin, S., & Reidenberg, J. (2021). Automated analysis of privacy requirements for mobile apps. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.13722

Join the Child First Policy Center for our weekly community call, hosted by Kathleen Barlow, Liz Jenkins, and Allie Terry. This is a space for real conversations with parents who are asking thoughtful questions, facing real challenges, and looking for practical solutions when it comes to technology in schools.

Join Our Community Call Here

Whether you’re concerned about take-home devices, classroom screen time, data privacy, or simply want to better understand your options, this call is designed for you.

Because here’s the truth: what’s happening in classrooms right now is not inevitable. It’s the result of policy decisions and those policies can change.

At Child First Policy Center, we are helping lead that change.

In Utah, Child First Policy Center has been a driving force behind some of the most significant education policy reforms in the country, working at the center of efforts with parents, educators, and lawmakers to fundamentally reshape how technology is used in schools. We helped lead and advance landmark legislation like the Balance Act (HB 273), which establishes clear, enforceable guardrails on classroom technology, and the SAFE Act (SB 267), which shifts the burden where it belongs by demanding that educational technology be proven safe and effective for students.

Our work has also been instrumental in advancing bell-to-bell device policies that restore focus, reduce distraction, and protect the learning environment throughout the entire school day. Beyond the classroom, we are leading efforts to hold digital marketplaces accountable through the App Store Accountability Act, addressing the broader ecosystem that shapes children’s digital experiences.

These are not incremental changes. They represent a major reset in education policy, one that prioritizes student well-being, protects attention and development, and puts real learning back at the center of the classroom.

And this is just the beginning.

We are now working in partnership with organizations across the country to build a unified coalition focused on one goal: real online safety for children. Not surface-level fixes. Not policies that sound good but change nothing. Real, structural protections that meet this moment.

Parents are not powerless in this conversation. In fact, they are the most important voice in it.

This community call is where that voice gets stronger.

Join Our Community Call Here

AI is moving fast—and our kids are right in the middle of it.

Most parents are being told to just trust it.
But more and more of us are starting to ask questions.

In this episode, Corinne Johnson sits down with AI ethics expert Medlir Mema to break down what really happened in Utah this session—and why parents are pushing for simple, common-sense guardrails.

They talk about chatbot safety, AI in schools, and the one question that matters most:

Just because we can… should we?

If something about all of this has felt off to you, you’re not alone.

Listen in, and share this with another parent who wants to take the scenic route—not just the fastest one.