A bill designed to shield Arizona’s children from inappropriate and mature advertisements on digital applications was signed into law on Tuesday.
Under the new law, “A child-directed application shall take appropriate measures to prevent the display of inappropriate and mature advertisements on the child-directed application.” It describes “inappropriate and mature advertisements,” as “an advertisement that sells or promotes any of the following: (a) violence, (b) explicit language, (c) sexual content, (d) alcohol or drug use.”
Rep. Julie Willoughby, who sponsored the law, explained, “As a mom and a legislator, I know how easily harmful content slips into apps that claim to be kid-friendly. Parents should be able to trust that their children won’t be bombarded with adult-themed ads. This law compels Big Tech to clean it up or face serious penalties.”
If the application owners targeting children 11 and younger fail to take meaningful measures to prevent the display of “inappropriate and mature advertisements,” they could face civil penalties of up to $100,000 per violation effective January 1, 2026. With the proliferation of child-facing applications and their wide adoption base, the potential civil liability for application-makers could be catastrophic.
The bill enjoyed rare bipartisan cooperation in the Arizona legislature, passing the House 48-11 with one member not voting, passing the Senate 16-9 with five Senators not voting, and finally getting signed into law by Arizona’s veto-prone Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs.
One of my favorite bills (HB2195) of the session passed the Senate yesterday! I'm grateful to get this legislation to the Governor's desk. pic.twitter.com/ahy6eO9ver
The new law is an advance along the trajectory laid out by the House Republican Majority Plan, designed to promote the safety of the youngest Arizonans while protecting parental rights by bringing “greater transparency and accountability to the digital platforms children use every day.”
The city of Flagstaff is poised to implement a uniform ban on all paid advertising at the Pulliam Airport following the threat of a lawsuit for banning a firearms ad.
This latest proposal comes after pushback to the city’s proposed prohibition on firearms advertising, a policy that came about after denying admission of an ad from an indoor shooting facility, Timberline Firearms and Training.
During the city council’s work session meeting on Tuesday, councilwoman Lori Matthews said that the city didn’t rely on the airport advertising for its revenue stream, and that determining what could be deemed offensive was too time-consuming and problematic.
“I feel that that’s a more equitable way to do it so that we’re not having discussions every time there’s something we didn’t think about,” said Matthews.
City manager Greg Clifton concurred with Matthews’ view that the potential cost and effort of defending advertising policy to the public and in court would far exceed the airport’s revenue stream.
“We’re talking, maybe, tens of thousands of dollars annually,” said Clifton. “This is not worth it.”
Mayor Becky Daggett agreed; she said that they’d already spent far too much time on their part and on staff’s part to review, debate, and refine the policy.
The Goldwater Institute, which sent a demand letter on behalf of Wilson, told AZ Free News that this latest move by the city was an effort to maintain control and shut out opposing views.
“The city is tying itself in knots to suppress viewpoints it doesn’t like. First, the city violated Rob’s constitutional rights by falsely claiming his ad shows ‘violence or anti-social behavior.’ Then, officials got to work crafting a new airport advertising policy specifically meant to target Rob and his business: an unconstitutional ban on all firearms-related airport ads,” said the organization. “After the Goldwater Institute made clear this new policy wouldn’t stand up in court, officials are now considering a blanket ban on all advertising at the airport rather than defend an indefensible position. There’s a better way: the city should simply allow Rob to run his harmless ad, as he has already done thousands of times, with no complaints.”
The Goldwater Institute sent legal notice to the city last month. In September, Republican lawmakers also warned the city that their proposed ban would be unconstitutional and unlawful.
During the Tuesday meeting, deputy city attorney Kevin Fincel discussed the new draft city advertising policy. Part of the presentation lamented that widespread press coverage of the firearms ban portion of the policy had resulted in controversy, and that some quotes by the press were inaccurate or misleading.
Specifically, the city took issue that multiple outlets included the following quote from the Goldwater Institute claiming that Flagstaff was “abusing its power to push an anti-gun agenda.”
Fincel noted that Timberline Firearms hadn’t run an ad in the airport since 2019. The city maintained that it hadn’t banned the shooting range from advertising, just that specific ad submitted.
“I don’t think Timberline was denied the ability to run an ad at the airport. I think, again, Timberline wanted to run a certain ad at the airport that staff took issue with or possibly discuss to edit,” said Fincel. “I think there was a narrative too, […] it was never an attempt to prevent Timberline from advertising, definitely not from the city,
The city included a July 7 email from Economic Vitality director Heidi Hansen to Wilson, citing it as proof that the city offered alternative advertising opportunities through Discover Flagstaff. The email offered no guarantee that the alternative would allow Wilson’s ad.
“Further, to our Discover Flagstaff, business relationship, they are very good at listening, understanding and then providing a plan,” said Hansen in the email. “They are very accessible, responsive, and reactive, they pivot when we need to pivot – they understand our business as many staff have worked in Destination Marketing Organizations (DMO). If you are interested in learning more and seeing how they might be able to cast a local net for you, I would give one of them a call to get more information. It’s an extremely targeted way to advertise.” (emphasis added)
City staff charged with reviewing ads for approval took issue with the ad because it depicted an individual firing a gun at a paper silhouette target. The city claimed that the ad conflicted with guidelines barring the representation of “violence or antisocial behavior.”
The contested ad by Timber Firearms and Training may be watched below:
The city plans to take action on a finalized version of the ban on paid advertising at the Pulliam Airport on Nov. 21.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Republican lawmakers are warning the Flagstaff City Council that their proposed ban on firearms ads would be unconstitutional and unlawful.
In a letter obtained by AZ Free News, State Reps. David Marshall (R-LD07), Leo Biasucci (R-LD30), and Quang Nguyen (R-LD1) told the council that the ban presented multiple constitutional concerns such as viewpoint discrimination and would violate state law, citing A.R.S. §13-3108.
“We trust that you realize, however, that the draft policy has nothing to do with ‘violence’ or ‘antisocial behavior.’ As written, the draft policy raises a host of constitutional concerns, including viewpoint discrimination,” said the lawmakers.
Flagstaff is set to vote today on a new radical ad policy discriminating against firearms-related speech. I joined my @AZHouse colleagues @DaveMarshallAZ and @Leo4AzHouse in calling out its potential constitutional violations and likely breach of state law. #1A#2Apic.twitter.com/cBWUBsgaTP
State Rep. John Gillette (R-LD30) agreed with his fellow lawmakers’ assessment of the policy.
“This can’t stand, what is repugnant to the Constitution should be void,” said Gillette.
During the meeting, Councilmember Lori Matthews said that firearms-related businesses should still be allowed to advertise, and proposed more specific restrictions on depictions of violence rather than banning all display of firearms in general.
“I feel uncomfortable thinking we would turn off a whole industry,” said Matthews.
Councilmember Jim McCarthy compared massage parlors, marijuana and cigarette shops to firearms, saying that none of those business owners were complaining of their inability to advertise. McCarthy claimed that the firearms-related businesses wouldn’t be hurt by this policy.
“This will have no effect on the operation of any of these businesses. What they can do or not do is determined by state law and other regulations,” said McCarthy. “[This policy will] have no impact on free speech in general.”
Councilmember Deb Harris said she didn’t need any more explanation of the policy changes, and that she was in full support of the draft policy as it stood.
Heidi Hansen, director of Economic Vitality, was responsible for the policy changes. Hansen recommended requiring firearms-related companies to include compelled speech consisting of a “safety message” in their advertisements.
Hansen further disclosed that their rejection of an ad placement by Timber Firearms and Training was due to the fact that the ad video depicted a firearms instructor “firing rapidly” at a “silhouette of a person.” The figure in question was likely the B-27 silhouette paper target, a common tool for shooting ranges, especially for law enforcement training.
“It was firing quite rapidly at a silhouette of a person and we felt like that might make someone uncomfortable,” said Hansen.
It appears that Timber Firearms and Training ad placement request was the motivator for the new proposed policy.
Wilson spoke out against the policy during Tuesday’s meeting. He noted that ads do have an impact, contrary to what some on the council implied.
“Sadly, some of our customers are like the single mother that just left the judge’s chambers. She has an order of protection but knows the abuser’s not going to honor that. She has to come someplace where she can get training and where she can get armed to defend herself and her children,” said Wilson. “If she didn’t know we existed, what would the result be?”
Wilson further warned the council that the proposed policy would be grounds for a lawsuit.
Michael Infanzon, a lobbyist representing the Arizona Citizens Defense League (ACDL), also voiced opposition to the policy. Infanzon said that the policy ran afoul of the Constitution and Arizona statute.
“[Municipalities] cannot enforce a complete ban unless they can demonstrate that such advertising constitutes a threat to public health and safety,” recited Infanzon.
Councilmember Miranda Sweet said Timber Firearms and Training may have to compromise.
“I was very uncomfortable when I watched [the ad video],” said Sweet. “We’re trying to welcome people into the community when they come into the airport, and the video didn’t portray that.”
Vice Mayor Austin Aslan said the proposed policy was “far too descriptive” and suggested changing the language to reflect “weapons” rather than “firearms.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
