Originally posted to X. 

Texas families don’t need more government telling them how to parent. They need more freedom, tools, and trust. But Senate Bill 2420 and its companion House Bill 4901—misleadingly named the App Store Accountability Act—head in the exact wrong direction.

While the bill’s stated goal is to protect children online, it does so by inserting the state into decisions that should be left to families. SB 2420 would require app stores to verify users’ ages, assign minors to their parents’ accounts, and block access to apps unless parental consent is obtained. It even mandates sharing sensitive information across platforms to enforce these requirements. What’s presented as a safety measure is a sweeping government mandate that undermines parental rights, tramples privacy, and punishes innovation.

Let’s be clear: protecting kids online matters. As a father of three, I understand the desire to shield our children from harmful content and bad influences. But that doesn’t mean we hand over the reins to government bureaucrats or force businesses into the role of digital babysitter.

SB 2420 assumes that politicians know better than parents. That’s not just offensive—it’s dangerous. It takes control out of the hands of families and gives it to tech platforms acting under state orders. The bill would require app stores to determine who qualifies as a parent or guardian, decide what age is appropriate for each app, and share user data across platforms to verify compliance—all without user consent. That’s a privacy disaster waiting to happen.

Texans should be deeply concerned about what this means for digital autonomy. When the government mandates age verification and app restrictions without consent, it opens the door to surveillance, data abuse, and censorship. Once the government starts dictating what apps your child can or can’t use, how long before it extends that power to adults?

We’ve seen what happens when states try to micromanage the tech world. California’s heavy-handed regulations have led to less innovation, fewer choices, and higher compliance costs that only the biggest tech companies can afford. If Texas adopts this bill, we risk driving away startups, stifling competition, and consolidating even more power in the hands of Silicon Valley giants. Ironically, SB 2420 would hurt the very competition lawmakers say they want to promote.

SB 2420 also distorts accountability. Instead of holding app developers responsible for harmful content or features, the bill targets app stores—the platforms that distribute them. That’s like punishing bookstores instead of the authors. It’s a classic case of misaligned incentives: pushing liability upstream to avoid tackling the real issues downstream.

But perhaps most troubling is how this bill sidelines the most important players in a child’s life—parents. Every family is different. What one parent considers inappropriate, another may see as an opportunity to teach and guide. That’s the beauty of parental freedom. One-size-fits-all mandates erase those differences and enforce government-approved parenting.

This isn’t about ignoring the risks kids face online. It’s about choosing the right response. We should empower parents with better tools, not replace them with regulations. Tech companies are already responding to consumer demand by offering advanced parental controls, app filters, and usage tracking—solutions that let families decide what works best for them. That’s the free-market approach that respects both liberty and responsibility.

Lawmakers who care about protecting kids should focus on education, transparency, and innovation. They should encourage companies to compete on safety features and support digital literacy programs that help parents and kids make informed choices. But they shouldn’t centralize control in Austin and pretend that’s a substitute for real parenting.

SB 2420 may be well-intentioned, but it’s the wrong solution. It’s terrible for privacy. Bad for innovation. And worst of all, it sends the message that government—not parents—should be in charge.

Texans know better. We don’t need the state raising our kids. Let’s trust families. Let’s trust freedom.

​Can the government really protect consumers better than markets?

In this episode of the Let People Prosper Show, I discuss this question and much more with Tirzah Duren, president of the American Consumer Institute, who brings a unique background in anthropology and economics to public policy.

Together, we explore the future of antitrust regulation, the consumer welfare standard, and how artificial intelligence and content moderation intersect with politics, tech, and personal freedom. Tirzah offers a robust case for why consumer-focused policy—not government control—is the best path forward.

For more insights, visit vanceginn.com and get even greater value with a subscription to my Substack newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com. 

(0:00) – Intro to antitrust, Tirzah’s journey, and why consumer focus matters
(6:02) – Global insights and the role of anthropology in shaping policy
(12:01) – Understanding how government disrupts market dynamics
(15:11) – Why the consumer welfare standard is still the best antitrust tool
(23:17) – AI’s promise, pitfalls, and how to regulate it wisely
(32:43) – Federalism and AI: What role should states play?

Originally posted with Logan Kolas at The Center Square.

​Some Texas lawmakers insist that a small business carveout in HB 1709, called the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA), will shield fledgling businesses from its Euro-style micromanagement of artificial intelligence.

They are mistaken.

TRAIGA is a sweeping attempt to regulate AI under the pretext of preventing algorithmic bias. In reality, it imposes excessive compliance burdens that stifle innovation, particularly among small businesses. It forces AI developers, distributors, and deployers to jump through bureaucratic hoops of paperwork, audits, and impact assessments.

The bill’s so-called small business exemption – for firms earning less than $7.5 million annually – ignores how AI works in the real economy. Most small businesses rely on AI tools developed by larger firms – and even use those tools to compete against them. Since those companies must comply with TRAIGA’s mandates, they will pass compliance costs down the supply chain, increasing expenses for everyone and depriving small businesses of a tool they can use to stay competitive against larger businesses.

A recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce report found that a quarter of small businesses in America already use AI to stay competitive. Whether it’s automated resume screening for construction, bid writing for utilities, AI-driven medical scheduling, or even simple Excel functions, TRAIGA could place everyday AI applications under costly regulatory scrutiny.

TRAIGA’s compliance burdens will discourage AI adoption among smaller firms, widening the gap between startups and entrenched players. Some lawmakers may justify this by arguing that it only targets “Big Tech,” but the reality is different: When large AI firms are overregulated, small businesses that rely on them suffer.

Texas is at the center of the AI revolution. Major AI infrastructure investments from firms like OpenAI, Oracle, and Microsoft bring advanced computational tools to startups and entrepreneurs. The Stargate initiative, backed by SoftBank and OpenAI, is expected to drive AI infrastructure development nationwide – starting in Abilene, Texas.

TRAIGA threatens to undermine this momentum. If passed, the bill will limit access to companies’ AI tools, increase costs to cover compliance, or abandon Texas altogether. Worse, the bill’s vague and subjective language will create a chilling effect, causing businesses to avoid investing in AI out of fear of regulatory entanglement.

California attempted a similar approach, and it backfired. The state’s AI bill was so convoluted and anti-innovation that even some of the most AI-hostile legislators had to backtrack. TRAIGA follows that same failed progressive model by punishing businesses not for actual harm but for hypothetical future harm – a dangerous “guilty until proven innocent” framework.

Fortunately, there is a better path forward. Instead of suffocating Texas businesses with excessive regulation, the Texas AI Freedom Act (TAIFA) will ensure that AI innovation thrives.

Filed by Rep. Brian Harrison, TAIFA takes the opposite approach of TRAIGA – it removes bureaucratic roadblocks and unleashes the power of the free market.

Unlike TRAIGA, which burdens small businesses, TAIFA cuts red tape and fosters AI development by creating a temporary AI Advisory Council to identify and remove unnecessary regulations. It also focuses AI policy on performance and American ingenuity by establishing regulatory laboratories where businesses can test AI innovations in a free-market setting. Notably, the TAIFA alternative ensures the government does not use AI expansion as an excuse to grow its power.

The U.S. is in the middle of an AI revolution, and Texas should lead it. TRAIGA would cripple AI growth in Texas, pushing investment to states with less burdensome policies. Worse, it could open the AI battlefield for China and other adversaries to dominate.

Texas should not follow California’s failed example of overregulation. Instead, it must embrace policies that encourage innovation, competition, and entrepreneurship. The Texas AI Freedom Act does precisely that.

TRAIGA shackles AI innovation. TAIFA unleashes it. Texas lawmakers must choose wisely.

​In this conversation, Dean Ball and I explore the transformative potential of artificial intelligence (AI) and its implications for society, economy, and governance. Dean is a senior fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He shares his motivations for engaging with AI, his journey into the field, and the misconceptions surrounding it. We discuss the historical context of technological advancements, the impact of AI on labor markets, and the regulatory challenges that arise as states like Texas introduce new frameworks for AI governance. Dean emphasizes the need for a balanced approach to regulation that fosters innovation while addressing potential risks and the connection with energy abundance.