Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment Act (HB 18, "SCOPE Act") ↗
SCOPE Act's challenged provisions (harmful-content monitoring/filtering, targeted advertising, age registration/verification) preliminarily enjoined by W.D. Tex. (2024-08, expanded 2025-02-07) as unconstitutionally vague; the unchallenged parental-supervision-tools duty remains in force. Texas's appeal was argued before the Fifth Circuit (2025-11); decision pending.
Whether the broader data-collection limits (beyond targeted advertising) are enjoined or in force is reported inconsistently across secondary sources; only the targeted-advertising restriction's enjoined status is firmly sourced. Statute section pins pending a pass against the enrolled text. A previously recorded '60-day cure period' could not be verified on 2026-07-04 and was removed: enforcement rides on DTPA § 17.47 (TCJL's section-level analysis reports only its 7-day pre-suit notice), while one compliance vendor reports a 30-day cure. The enrolled text was unreachable, so no cure-period claim is made.
Scope
Binds a 'digital service provider' whose service lets users create a public/semi-public profile and post content viewable by other users.
- Exempts services where 'chat, comment, or other interactive functionality is incidental' to commerce.
Whether a service's interactive functionality is 'incidental' to its commercial function is left open by the statutory text.
Penalties
- Model
- Per violation
- Detail
- Civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation via the DTPA (additional penalties for violating an injunction), plus injunctive relief and attorney's fees; class-action certification barred; parents/guardians of an affected known minor may seek declaratory or injunctive relief (§ 509.152)
- Enforcer
- Texas Attorney General (Consumer Protection Division)
- Private right of action
- No
Key dates
- Effective
- 2024-09-01
Obligations (4)
Register the age of each account holder and identify whether the user is a known minor.
Statute’s own ages: Minor = under 18; the statute treats all under-18 users as minors without finer bands
Do not use a known minor's personal data to target advertising, and limit collection of a known minor's personal information to what is reasonably necessary.
Statute’s own ages: Minor = under 18
Monitor and filter a known minor's exposure to harmful material (content promoting self-harm, eating disorders, grooming, and similar categories) and prevent the minor from being exposed to it.
Statute’s own ages: Minor = under 18
Provide parents with tools to supervise a known minor's account, including privacy and account settings.
Statute’s own ages: Minor = under 18
Litigation history
- 2024-08-30W.D. Tex. (Judge Robert Pitman) granted a preliminary injunction blocking the harmful-content 'monitoring and filtering' provisions→ Those provisions unenforceable; remainder of the law took effect 2024-09-01 source ↗
- 2025-02-07W.D. Tex. (Judge Pitman) enjoined additional challenged provisions (targeted-advertising restrictions and an age-verification requirement) as unconstitutionally vague; Texas appealed→ Challenged substantive provisions unenforceable pending appeal source ↗
- 2025-11Fifth Circuit heard argument on Texas's appeal of the SCOPE Act injunctions (consolidated CCIA/NetChoice and SEAT challenges)→ No change; injunctions remain in place pending the Fifth Circuit's decision source ↗
Cross-state comparisons
- similarfl-hb3 (Florida): Both are 2024-era state minor-protection laws imposing age-determination and parental duties on providers of social online services, and both were preliminarily enjoined on First Amendment grounds, but HB 18 remains enjoined while FL HB 3's injunction was stayed (enforceable).
- similarms-hb1126 (Mississippi): Both impose age verification and parental-consent-style duties on 'digital service providers' and were preliminarily enjoined as likely unconstitutional; HB 1126's injunction was later stayed (enforceable), HB 18's was not.