A divided panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that Ohio’s law requiring children under 16 to obtain parental permission before using social media platforms must be reinstated, delivering a significant setback to the tech industry’s efforts to block similar measures nationwide.
The 2-1 decision, issued from Cincinnati, reverses a lower court’s injunction that had halted enforcement of the Social Media Parental Notification Act. The law, signed by Republican Governor Mike DeWine in July 2023 as part of an $86.1 billion state budget, mandates that companies secure parental consent for minors and disclose their privacy policies and content moderation practices.
Writing for the majority, Judge Eric Clay held that the law’s parental consent requirement imposes only a “marginal burden” on speech and directly addresses the state’s interest in protecting children from the harms of unsupervised social media use. “Children’s unsupervised assent to terms and conditions for use of platforms that take advantage of and harm them” is the precise problem the law targets, Clay wrote. Judge Alice Batchelder concurred, dismissing arguments that the statute was impermissibly vague, noting that “a statute is not vague just because it has a wide berth.”
The ruling is a sharp reversal of fortune for NetChoice, the trade association representing TikTok, Snapchat, Meta, and other major tech firms. NetChoice had successfully challenged similar digital age verification laws in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Georgia, arguing they violate the First Amendment. Paul Taske, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, vowed to continue the fight, stating, “An unconstitutional law protects no one, and we remain focused on ensuring the First Amendment rights of Ohioans are protected.”
NetChoice brought its lawsuit in early 2024, contending that the Ohio statute was overly broad, vague, and an unconstitutional burden on free speech. The Sixth Circuit panel disagreed, sending the case back to the district court with instructions to lift the block on enforcement.
Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson, a Republican, hailed the ruling as “a win for Ohio families.” In a statement, he declared, “The court agreed that parents – not social media companies – should get a say in what kids see online. We have an obligation to keep our children safe, and today, the most dangerous place for our kids is the internet. This decision gives parents the tools to be involved and provide oversight.”
The law was championed by the DeWine administration as a mental health measure. Then-Lieutenant Governor Jon Husted, now a U.S. senator, argued at the time that social media platforms are “intentionally addictive” and harmful to young users. The legislation requires companies to obtain verifiable parental consent for minors to create accounts on social media and gaming apps, and to provide families with clear information about what content will be censored or moderated on their child’s profile.
The decision comes amid a broader national debate over children’s online safety and free speech. Similar battles are playing out in other states, with tech groups often prevailing. The Ohio case, however, marks a notable exception. As the legal landscape shifts, the ruling could influence pending legislation in other states and shape the conversation around parental rights and digital regulation.
