Statewiseby[codeliance]Alpha
← Back to map

Utah

Researchedlast verified 2026-07-04

Has regulations

Two tracked regulations. ut-sb142 (App Store Accountability Act): signed 2025-03-26; HB 498 (signed 2026-03-18) delayed the key app-store/developer obligations to 2027-05-06, removed AG enforcement, and left only a private right of action. CCIA's First Amendment challenge was voluntarily dismissed 2026-04-21. ut-sb194 (Minor Protection in Social Media Act, 2024, as amended by HB 464): the repeal-and-replace successor to Utah's 2023 Social Media Regulation Act, imposing age assurance, minor default privacy settings, and design/addictive-feature restrictions, plus an HB 464 private right of action for algorithmic-curation harm; preliminarily enjoined 2024-09-10 (NetChoice v. Reyes, now NetChoice v. Brown) before its 2024-10-01 effective date, with Utah's Tenth Circuit appeal argued 2025-11-20 and a decision pending.

App Store Accountability Act (SB 142)

DelayedResearchedlast verified 2026-07-04
App store providerApp developer

Signed 2025-03-26; HB 498 (signed 2026-03-18) pushed the key app-store/developer obligations to 2027-05-06, removed AG enforcement, and left only a private right of action. CCIA's First Amendment challenge was voluntarily dismissed 2026-04-21.

Status is `delayed`: HB 498 (signed 2026-03-18) pushed the key app-store/developer obligations from 2026-05-06 to 2027-05-06. private_right_of_action is `true` (the PRA was retained and is now the sole enforcement path), but its exact commencement date could not be pinned to a verified source: the pre-HB-498 text set a private-action date of 2026-12-31, and reporting notes HB 498 modified the enforcement framework without a source stating the new PRA commencement relative to the 2027-05-06 operative date. Treat the PRA start date as unverified. Obligation section pins still need a pass against the enrolled SB 142 / HB 498 text.

Scope

Defines a 'developer' as a person that owns or controls a software application made available through an app store. The Act's primary duty-bearer is the app store provider, which carries the age-verification, age-category-assignment, and parental-consent-gateway duties; developer duties (age rating, obtaining age category and verifiable parental consent through the store's data-sharing method, enumerated-purpose limits on age-category data) attach to developers.

Penalties

Model
Other
Detail
After HB 498, enforcement is by private civil action only: a minor injured by a violation, or their parent/legal guardian, may sue an app store provider or developer. HB 498 removed the Utah AG's prior authority to enforce under the state deceptive-trade-practice framework.
Enforcer
Private plaintiffs only (minors harmed by a violation, or their parents/legal guardians); no state enforcer after HB 498
Private right of action
Yes

Key dates

Signed
2025-03-26
Effective
2025-05-07
Enforcement begins
2027-05-06

Obligations (3)

Age rating & store signalsUnder 1313–1516–17effective 2027-05-06

Assign an age rating to the app and notify the app store of a significant change to the app.

Statute’s own ages: Age categories: child (under 13), younger teenager (13-15), older teenager (16-17), adult (18+).

Utah Code (SB 142, 2025, as amended by HB 498, 2026): section pin pending verification against the enrolled text
Parental consentUnder 1313–1516–17effective 2027-05-06

Before a Utah minor uses the app, obtain the user's age category and, for minors, verifiable parental consent through the app store's data-sharing method.

Statute’s own ages: Minor categories: child (under 13), younger teenager (13-15), older teenager (16-17).

Utah Code (SB 142, 2025, as amended by HB 498, 2026): section pin pending verification against the enrolled text
Minor data protectionUnder 1313–1516–17effective 2027-05-06

Use the age-category data received from the app store only to enforce age-related restrictions, comply with law, or implement safety features.

Utah Code (SB 142, 2025, as amended by HB 498, 2026): HB 498 added the enumerated-purpose limit; section pin pending verification

Litigation history

  1. 2026-02
    Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) filed a First Amendment challenge to SB 142
    Sought to block enforcement; obligations were not yet operative regardless source ↗
  2. 2026-03-18
    Governor signed HB 498, amending SB 142: delayed the key obligations to 2027-05-06 and removed the Utah AG's authority to enforce the Act (private right of action retained)
    Operational obligations remain not-yet-effective (now 2027-05-06); AG enforcement eliminated, leaving only private enforcement source ↗
  3. 2026-04-21
    CCIA voluntarily dismissed its challenge after HB 498 removed the AG enforcement authority it had targeted
    No active litigation; Act stands as amended, awaiting the 2027-05-06 operative date source ↗

Cross-state comparisons

  • similartx-sb2420 (Texas): Near-identical app-store-accountability model: the app store verifies age and relays age-category + parental-consent signals, and app developers age-rate and consume those signals. The two diverge on posture: Utah's key duties are delayed to 2027-05-06 and, after HB 498, privately enforced only, whereas Texas SB 2420 is currently enforceable pending appeal with AG enforcement.

Minor Protection in Social Media Act (S.B. 194, 2024, as amended by H.B. 464, 2024)

EnjoinedResearchedlast verified 2026-07-04
Social media platform

Preliminarily enjoined 2024-09-10 (NetChoice v. Reyes, D. Utah, Judge Robert J. Shelby) on First Amendment grounds, weeks before its 2024-10-01 effective date, so S.B. 194 never took effect. Utah appealed to the Tenth Circuit (No. 24-4100, now captioned NetChoice v. Brown); oral argument was heard 2025-11-20 and a decision is pending as of 2026-07-04.

H.B. 464 (effective 2024-05-01) repealed the 2023 Social Media Regulation Act and added the private right of action captured under `penalties`; S.B. 194 (effective 2024-10-01) carries the substantive design/privacy duties and was never enforced due to the 2024-09-10 injunction. S.B. 194 enacts Utah Code Title 13, Chapter 71 (§§ 13-71-101 et seq.); individual section pins and the H.B. 464 private-right-of-action code placement are not verified against primary text and are flagged as pending in each citation. Any user-count/size threshold in the 'social media company' definition was not confirmed in sources and is omitted rather than guessed. The Tenth Circuit oral argument (2025-11-20) reportedly focused on the addictive-design-feature restriction; no appellate decision had issued as of 2026-07-04. Sources describe the appeal as First Amendment scrutiny but do not confirm it was briefed under Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton's framework, so that is not asserted here.

Scope

Binds a 'social media company' that owns or operates a 'social media service' (a platform displaying user-generated content, offering registered public profiles, connecting users for social interaction, maintaining connection lists, and permitting posting). The statute expressly excludes email, cloud storage, and document viewing/sharing/collaboration services. A 'minor' is an individual under 18.

Coverage conditions
  • Applies to services meeting the statutory 'social media service' functionality test; any user-count or size threshold in the definition is not pinned here pending primary-text verification.(Utah Code § 13-71-101 (definitions): section pin pending primary-text verification)
Express exemptions
  • Email, cloud storage, and document viewing, sharing, or collaboration services fall outside the 'social media service' definition.(Utah Code § 13-71-101: section pin pending primary-text verification)

Successor to Utah's 2023 Social Media Regulation Act, which H.B. 464 repealed in full. The 2024 rewrite pivoted from account-creation age verification plus a parental-consent-to-hold-an-account model toward age assurance, default privacy settings, and design/addictive-feature restrictions for minor accounts.

Penalties

Model
Statutory damages
Detail
H.B. 464 creates a private right of action allowing a Utah minor account holder, or the parent of one, to sue a social media company for an adverse mental health outcome arising, in whole or in part, from the minor's excessive use of an algorithmically curated social media service, with a rebuttable presumption that the harm was caused by excessive use. Recovery is the greater of $10,000 per adverse-mental-health-outcome incidence or actual damages, plus reasonable attorney fees and costs. S.B. 194's administrative-enforcement structure (Division of Consumer Protection) is not decomposed here pending primary-text verification.
Private right of action
Yes

Key dates

Signed
2024-03-13
Effective
2024-10-01

Obligations (4)

Age verification / estimationUnder 1313–1516–17

Operate an age-assurance system that determines whether an account holder is a minor using measures reasonably calculated to reach an accuracy rate of at least 95%.

Statute’s own ages: Distinguishes minors (under 18) from adults; no finer statutory age cut for the assurance duty.

Utah Code § 13-71-201 (age assurance): section pin pending primary-text verification
Default-high privacy for minorsUnder 1313–1516–17

Apply protective default settings to minor accounts: restricting account and post visibility and searchability to connected accounts, disabling search-engine indexing, limiting direct messaging to connected accounts, and limiting collection and sale of a minor's data to what a core function requires.

Statute’s own ages: Applies to minor account holders (under 18).

Utah Code § 13-71 (minor default settings): section pin pending primary-text verification
Addictive-feature restrictionsUnder 1313–1516–17

Refrain from deploying specified engagement-driving design features on minor accounts, including autoplay, seamless (infinite-scroll) pagination, and push notifications.

Statute’s own ages: Applies to minor account holders (under 18).

Utah Code § 13-71 (design/addictive-feature restrictions): section pin pending primary-text verification
Parental consentUnder 1313–1516–17

Provide verifiable parental-consent mechanisms and supervisory tools; a minor may not change the protective default data-privacy settings unless the company first obtains verifiable parental consent.

Statute’s own ages: Applies to minor account holders (under 18).

Utah Code § 13-71 (verifiable parental consent): section pin pending primary-text verification

Litigation history

  1. 2024-05-03
    NetChoice filed an amended complaint in its District of Utah suit (originally challenging the repealed 2023 Social Media Regulation Act) to target the new S.B. 194 and H.B. 464
    No change. Challenge reframed against the successor statute ahead of its effective date source ↗
  2. 2024-07-24
    Judge Robert J. Shelby granted Utah's motion to dismiss Count IV (a Section 230 preemption theory) for failure to state a claim
    No change. A single count dismissed; the First Amendment claims proceeded source ↗
  3. 2024-09-10
    U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (Judge Robert J. Shelby) granted NetChoice a preliminary injunction, finding it substantially likely to succeed on its claim that the Act imposes content-based restrictions on social media companies' speech and facially violates the First Amendment
    Unenforceable statewide; S.B. 194 did not take effect on its 2024-10-01 effective date source ↗
  4. 2024-10-11
    Utah officials (Consumer Protection Division Director Katherine Hass and the Attorney General) filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (No. 24-4100)
    No change. Act remains enjoined while the appeal is pending source ↗
  5. 2025-11-20
    Tenth Circuit heard oral argument on Utah's appeal of the preliminary injunction; the caption is now NetChoice v. Brown, reflecting Utah Attorney General Derek Brown's succession to office
    No change. The Act remains enjoined while the Tenth Circuit's decision is pending source ↗

Cross-state comparisons

  • similarga-sb351 (Georgia): Both are 2024 social-media minor-protection laws preliminarily enjoined on First Amendment grounds before their effective dates; both include default-setting and data restrictions for minors alongside age checks.
  • similarar-act689 (Arkansas): Both are social-media minor-protection laws enjoined pre-effective-date on First Amendment grounds, with appeals pending in the federal circuits; Utah's rewrite, however, leans on age assurance and design restrictions rather than Arkansas's age-verification-plus-parental-consent-to-hold-an-account model.
  • similarne-lb383 (Nebraska): Both regulate minors' social-media experience and drew First Amendment challenges from NetChoice; the statutory mechanisms differ (Utah's default settings and addictive-feature limits versus account-gating).