Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the App Store Accountability Act Sb372 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kansas Senate Judiciary Committee hears debate over App Store Accountability Act (SB 372)
Summary
The Senate Judiciary Committee heard hours of testimony for and against SB 372, which would require app stores to verify age categories, link minor accounts to a parent account and obtain verifiable parental consent; proponents called it a contract-law fix to protect children, while tech groups and trade associations warned of constitutional and privacy risks and burdens on small developers.
The Kansas Senate Judiciary Committee opened a hearing on Senate Bill 372, the App Store Accountability Act, which would require app stores to request and verify users’ age categories, link accounts identified as belonging to minors to verified parent accounts, and require verifiable parental consent before enforcing contract terms against minors.
Proponents argued the bill protects children and restores parental control. John Reed of the Digital Childhood Alliance told the committee SB 372 “applies that same concept to the digital space,” saying minors should not be bound to complex digital contracts without a responsible adult’s consent. Heidi Olsen, a pediatric forensic nurse examiner, described multiple cases she said involved grooming and exploitation that began on apps, and said current age ratings and parental controls mislead caregivers. Chris McKenna, founder and CEO of Protect Young Eyes, said app stores already hold the necessary signals (for example, family-sharing features) and that the bill would use anonymized age-category signals so developers do not receive identifying information.
Opponents pushed back on legal and privacy grounds. Megan Stokes, state policy director at the Computer and Communications Industry Association, said courts have repeatedly struck down similar age-verification laws and argued SB 372 “would restrict access not only for minors, but also for adults and teens seeking lawful news, educational, and expressive content.” Zack Lilly of NetChoice warned the law would invite expensive litigation and create a “honeypot” of sensitive data. The App Association and several trade groups emphasized burdens on small developers who ‘‘do not have compliance teams’’ and could face increased risk under COPPA or be forced to limit features or exit the Kansas market.
Committee members asked practical questions about implementation and costs. Senator Bowser asked whether the attorney general’s office would incur expenses; Michelle Schroeder, chief of staff to the attorney general, said the office requested one FTE to cover enforcement. Several senators raised privacy concerns about centralized verification; proponents responded that the bill is intended to preserve privacy by sharing only anonymized age-category signals and by relying on systems (such as Apple Family Sharing and Google Family Link) that already exist.
Legal context featured prominently in testimony. The Reviser's office summarized the bill and noted an implementation timeline in the draft: app stores must request and verify age categories for new accounts and by 12/31/2026 for accounts created before the act takes effect, and the attorney general is required to adopt rules establishing acceptable age-verification methods by 10/01/2026. Opponents cited recent litigation in Texas and other states as reasons the committee should not advance a similar statute.
No vote on SB 372 was taken at the hearing. The committee accepted several proponent and opponent written testimonies and heard live testimony from a range of groups including parental-rights and child-safety advocates, industry trade associations, and public-policy organizations. The committee adjourned after approving a separate committee bill request (RS 27 12) concerning access to tax information and KBI background checks for appointees.
What’s next: The Judiciary Committee did not take final action on SB 372 today; committee members indicated they may hold additional questions and will consider the written record and testimony before any further steps.
