Bill Description: Senate Bill 1168 would attempt to regulate app stores and require mobile device manufacturers to automatically activate censorship filters on mobile devices activated in Idaho.
Rating: -6
NOTE: Senate Bill 1168 is related to a host of bills introduced over the years, including Senate Bill 1158 (2025), Senate Bill 1253 (2024); Senate Bill 1222 (2024); Senate Bill 1163 (2023); Senate Bill 1057 (2023); and Senate Bill 1261 (2022). In each case, IFF has pointed out both fundamental and technical issues with these bills. Fundamentally, cellphone filter legislation is actually anti-family and dangerous to privacy.
Does it give government any new, additional, or expanded power to prohibit, restrict, or regulate activities in the free market? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce government intervention in the market?
Senate Bill 1168 would create Chapter 21, Title 48, Idaho Code, to require manufacturers of smartphones or tablets to include strict censorship filters that automatically take effect when the device is activated and the device cannot conclusively determine that the user is an adult.
These mandatory censorship filters would be required to "prevent the device from accessing or displaying obscene material or content that is harmful to minors."
Of note, this demand includes more than censoring content as it is viewed or downloaded from the internet. For example, it seems to require the device to monitor and analyze content created on the device itself (e.g. photos taken with the device).
The filters would also be required to "prevent downloads on the device; notify the minor's parent or guardian of any download attempts or attempts to bypass the filter; prevent the use of a VPN on the device."
These requirements go well beyond the normal scope and purpose of a content filter and would require much more comprehensive software that would fundamentally alter how mobile devices operate. On a technical level, accessing any content on the internet involves "downloading" content (at least temporarily) to the device.
It would be nearly impossible for device manufacturers to comply with this law.
(-1)
The bill would also attempt to regulate app stores — or, more specifically, compel the device manufacturer to "require all app developers who sell or provide apps on such app store to identify, as to all apps sold or provided: whether such app has the ability to display, access, or link to obscene material or content that is harmful to minors or may contain advertisements that include obscene material or content that is harmful to minors; and whether the app has the ability to bypass parental control settings."
This might be technically possible (though very difficult to implement) within the Apple ecosystem, where a single company controls the Apple App Store and manufactures the Apple iPhone. But it is not possible within the Android ecosystem, where most app stores operate independently from device manufacturers.
The requirements imposed by the act range from costly and intrusive to impossible. These devices are manufactured for global markets, and the mandates would be imposed by just one state in one country.
If this law were enacted and survived its inevitable court challenges, it is likely that device manufacturers would choose to stop allowing their devices to be sold or activated in Idaho.
(-1)
Does it directly or indirectly create or increase penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for nonviolent crimes? Conversely, does it eliminate or decrease penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for non-violent crimes?
The bill would impose "civil and criminal liability" on device manufacturers if "a minor accesses obscene material or content that is harmful to minors" on a device that was activated in Idaho and did not comply with all of the mandates discussed above.
(-1)
The bill would also seek to impose "civil and criminal liability" on app developers if "a minor accesses obscene material or content that is harmful to minors using the app" and the app developer "does not correctly identify the capabilities of the app pursuant to section 48-2106(1), Idaho Code."
The referenced subsection says, "If a device provides access to an app store, the device's manufacturer shall require all app developers who sell or provide apps on such app store to identify, as to all apps sold or provided: Whether such app has the ability to display, access, or link to obscene material or content that is harmful to minors or may contain advertisements that include obscene material or content that is harmful to minors; and Whether the app has the ability to bypass parental control settings."
Again, these regulations seem targeted toward the Apple ecosystem because they don't make sense for an open-source operating system like Android.
Attempting to impose "civil and criminal liability" on app developers because an app (such as a web browser) can access obscene content ignores how mobile devices, apps, and the internet function.
(-1)
The bill contains significant financial penalties for both device manufacturers and app developers. It says, "Whenever the attorney general has reason to believe that a person violated or is violating the provisions of this chapter," he may "enjoin any action that constitutes a violation of this chapter by the issuance of a temporary restraining order or preliminary or permanent injunction." The state, through the attorney general, may also "recover from the alleged violator a civil penalty" of up to $5,000 per violation and $50,000 in aggregate, plus "expenses, investigative costs, and attorney's fees."
In addition to creating financial penalties, the act would allow the attorney general to "seek the revocation of any license or certificate authorizing a manufacturer to engage in business in this state."
(-1)
Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the U.S. Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?
The constitutional implications of this bill are numerous, infringing on property rights, privacy, and free speech. These infringements don't just affect device manufacturers and app developers, they also impact mobile device users.
Any device being activated would have to obtain both the user's location and age so the device could comply with the state’s censorship requirements. This effectively prohibits anonymous activations.
This act would apply to any "tablet or a smartphone manufactured on or after January 1, 2026," including basic tablets that do not have a mobile data connection and instead connect to the internet solely using Wi-Fi. Currently, such devices can be activated and used without the owner enabling location settings, establishing any type of account, or providing any identifying information. Under this act, anonymously activating and using a basic tablet would effectively be prohibited.
An adult user would be unable to purchase a device without a content filter or activate the device without positively verifying his or her age.
The state should not require individuals to compromise their privacy and anonymity to use communication devices or access the internet.
(-1)
In addition to the privacy violations inherent in this act, there are free speech concerns. Making state censorship the default operating mode of every device activated in Idaho is an unreasonable infringement on the basic liberties of everyone involved.
There are also concerns with the overbroad and subjective definition of "obscene material" found in Section 18-4104, Idaho Code. Applying such a definition to automated internet censorship filters imposes technical challenges and will likely result in excessive censorship (even for minors) due to manufacturers seeking to avoid litigation.
Strict scrutiny should always be applied when the government considers or passes a law that limits fundamental rights, such as privacy, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press. This means the law must serve a compelling government interest and use the least restrictive means to achieve that end.
It is unclear if this law would survive the inevitable constitutional challenges raised against it, but it would be prudent for Idaho to seek a more narrowly tailored solution if it wants to address these issues in a constitutional fashion.
(-1)
Does it promote the breakdown of the traditional family or the deconstruction of societal norms? Examples include promoting or incentivizing degeneracy, violating parental rights, and compromising the innocence of children. Conversely, does it protect or uphold the structure, tenets, and traditional values of Western society?
The "declaration of policy" for Senate Bill 1168 says the state should "promote the mental health of minors and adopt a comprehensive and proactive approach to reducing minors' access to harmful content."
While the notion of protecting minors is laudable, the methods adopted must not unduly infringe on the free market or violate fundamental rights of privacy or free speech.
(+1)
