Clank is among 15 targets of a children’s privacy investigation conducted by the Texas Attorney General

Privacy experts who spoke with WIRED described Rumble, Quora, and WeChat as unusual suspects, but declined to speculate on the rationale behind their inclusion in the investigation. Concerns aren’t always clear, says Josh Golin, executive director of the nonprofit Fairplay, which advocates for children’s digital safety. For example, a few advocacy groups were even concerned about Pinterest The case of the British teenager He says he died from self-harm after being exposed to sensitive content on the platform.

Paxton’s press release last month called his new investigation “a critical step toward ensuring that social media and AI companies comply with our laws designed to protect children from exploitation and harm.”

The US Congress never passed Comprehensive privacy lawAnd he is It has not significantly updated its online safety rules for children In a quarter of a century. That has left it up to state lawmakers and regulators to play a big role.

Paxton’s investigation focuses on compliance with the Texas Children’s Online Security by Parent Empowerment Act, or SCOPE, law. which entered into force In September. This applies to any website or app that has social media or chat functionality and registers users under 18, making it more broad than the federal law, which only covers services that cater to users under 13.

SCOPE requires the Services to ask about users’ age and provide parents or guardians with authority over children’s account settings and user data. Companies are also prohibited from selling information collected about minors without parental permission. In October, Paxton filed a lawsuit against TikTok for allegedly violating the law by providing inadequate parental controls and disclosing data without consent. TikTok denied the allegations.

The investigation announced last month also cited the Texas Data Privacy and Security Act, OR TDPSAwhich became effective in July and requires parental consent before processing data relating to users under 13 years of age. Paxton’s office has asked the companies being investigated to detail their compliance with both SCOPE and TDPSA, according to legal demands obtained through a public records request.

In total, the companies must answer eight questions by next week, including how many minors in Texas they consider to be employed and prevented from recording an inaccurate birth date. Lists of people to whom minors’ data is sold or shared must be handed over. It is not possible to know whether any company has actually responded to the request.

Tech company lobbyists are challenging the constitutionality of the SCOPE Act in court. In August, they scored an initial and partial victory when a federal judge in Austin, Texas, ruled that a provision requiring companies to take steps to prevent minors from seeing self-harm and offensive content was too vague.

But even a complete win may not be a balm for tech companies. States, including Maryland and New York, are expected to implement similar laws starting later this year, says Ariel Fox Johnson, an attorney and principal at Digital Smarts Law & Policy, a consulting firm. State prosecutors can resort to pursuing narrower cases under their tried-and-true laws prohibiting deceptive business practices. “What we see is that information is often shared, sold, or disclosed in ways that families did not expect or understand,” Johnson says. “As more laws are enacted that impose strict requirements, it seems to be becoming more apparent that not everyone is adhering to them.”