According to MacRumors, Apple CEO Tim Cook was in Washington D.C. today lobbying lawmakers against the upcoming App Store Accountability Act. The bill, set for consideration by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Thursday morning, would require Apple to verify a user’s age with a “commercially available method” when an Apple Account is created. It would also mandate that Apple obtain parental consent for every single app downloaded by a child under 16 years old. Apple opposes the bill, arguing it would force the company to collect excessive data like driver’s licenses or Social Security numbers from all users. This comes as Texas has already passed a similar law, SB2420, which will force Apple to implement age verification for users in that state starting January 1, 2026.
Cook’s Privacy Play
Here’s the thing: Apple’s argument is classic Apple. They’re positioning themselves as the privacy guardian, warning that this law would create a massive new database of sensitive government IDs. And they’re not entirely wrong. Forcing a platform to verify the age of every single account holder is a huge data collection exercise. But let’s be skeptical for a second. Isn’t this also incredibly convenient for Apple? It shifts the legal liability and the operational headache of age-gating content entirely onto the shoulders of app developers. Apple gets to keep its hands clean, avoid costly verification systems, and still look like the good guy protecting your driver’s license number. It’s a brilliant defensive PR move, really.
The Texas Precedent
Now, the Texas law is the real canary in the coal mine. Starting in 2026, the game changes there. Apple will have to figure out age verification for Texans, which likely means they’ll have to build the systems they’re telling Congress are so dangerous. So what’s Cook’s real goal in Washington? It seems like he’s trying to head off a federal standard that could be even stricter and more uniform. If they can kill the federal bill, maybe they can contain the damage to a patchwork of state laws. But that’s a risky and expensive strategy long-term. Managing 50 different state-level regulations for digital storefronts is a compliance nightmare.
Are Parental Controls Enough?
Apple’s counter-argument is that they already provide tools like Screen Time and family sharing. They’ve also rolled out new features like a Declared Age Range API for developers. Basically, they’re saying, “We give parents the tools, it’s their job to use them.” But that’s a weak defense, and lawmakers know it. Asking a parent to manually approve every app in a store with millions of options is unrealistic. And letting a 13-year-old declare they’re 18 during account setup, which is the current model, is a joke. The legislation is calling their bluff. The real question is whether a tech giant, especially one in the business of selling hardware and taking a cut of all software sales, should have any responsibility for what minors can access on its platform. I think we all know the answer society is leaning toward.
The Bigger Fight
This isn’t just about kids and apps. This is the latest front in the long war over Section 230 and platform liability. Lawmakers are increasingly unwilling to let digital marketplaces plead ignorance. They want gatekeepers to be responsible gatekeepers. Apple wants the revenue and control of a walled garden but none of the duties that come with being the sole gatekeeper. You can’t have it both ways forever. Cook’s trip to D.C. shows they’re scared this particular duty—age verification—is about to become law. And once that precedent is set, what’s next?
