A gavel rests on legal documents outside a courthouse, representing the recent appeals court decision impacting Ohio’s parental consent law for social media. (Illustrative AI-generated image).
- The Ruling: What the Appeals Court Decided
- NetChoice's Reaction: A Blow to Big Tech's Legal Strategy
- Why Ohio's Law Is Different from Others (and Why It Stood)
- The Legal Battle So Far: Previous Wins for Tech in Other States
- What Happens Next: Enforcement and Further Appeals
Big Tech in Ohio Suffers Setback with Appeals Court Decision on Social Media Restrictions
A federal appeals court handed a rare win for state online safety laws on Thursday, ordering Ohio to enforce a law that requires children under 16 to get parental consent before using social media apps. The 2-1 decision by a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a lower court’s block on the law and sends the case back for enforcement.
The ruling is a blow to NetChoice, the trade group representing major tech companies including Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, and others. NetChoice had sued Ohio in 2024, arguing the law is overly broad, vague, and violates the First Amendment’s free speech protections. But the appeals court disagreed, at least for now.
Judge Eric Clay wrote the lead opinion, calling the parental consent requirement a “marginal burden” on free speech, especially when weighed against the state’s interest in protecting children from online harm. He was joined by Judge Alice Batchelder, who wrote separately to say the law is not unconstitutionally vague. The dissenting judge argued the law goes too far in restricting speech.
The decision marks a shift in the legal landscape. NetChoice has won previous court victories against similar digital identification laws in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Georgia. In those cases, judges blocked the laws before they could take effect, citing First Amendment concerns. Ohio’s law is the first to survive an initial court challenge and be reinstated by a federal appeals court.
The Ruling: What the Appeals Court Decided
The case centers on Ohio’s Social Media Parental Notification Act, which was signed into law in 2023. The law requires social media platforms to get verifiable parental consent before allowing children under 16 to create accounts or use certain features. Tech companies that do not comply could face fines.
A federal district judge in Ohio had blocked the law in early 2024, agreeing with NetChoice that it likely violates the First Amendment. The judge said the law was too broad and could restrict access to content that is perfectly legal for minors to see. Ohio appealed, and the Sixth Circuit agreed to hear the case on an expedited basis.
On Thursday, the appeals court panel reversed the lower court’s injunction. In his lead opinion, Judge Clay said the state has a compelling interest in protecting children from the harms of social media, including exploitation, addiction, and mental health problems. He wrote that the parental consent requirement is a “reasonable” way to achieve that goal, and that it does not impose a heavy burden on speech.
“The requirement that a parent give permission before a child can access a social media platform is a marginal burden on the child’s speech,” Clay wrote. “It does not prevent the child from speaking at all. It simply requires that a parent be involved in the decision.”
Judge Batchelder agreed with the result but wrote a separate opinion to address the vagueness argument. She said the law defines key terms clearly enough that a person of ordinary intelligence can understand what is required. “The statute is not a model of clarity, but it is not unconstitutionally vague,” she wrote.
The dissenting judge, whose name was not immediately available, argued that the law is too broad and could restrict speech that is protected under the First Amendment. The dissenter said the state could achieve its goals with less restrictive measures, such as educational campaigns or voluntary industry guidelines.
The ruling does not decide the case once and for all. It only lifts the lower court’s block, allowing the law to be enforced while the legal fight continues. The case will go back to the district court for a full trial on the merits.
NetChoice’s Reaction: A Blow to Big Tech’s Legal Strategy
NetChoice quickly condemned the ruling. Paul Taske, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said the decision goes against what he called a “clear national consensus” that such laws are unconstitutional. He vowed to keep fighting.
“An unconstitutional law protects no one, and we remain focused on ensuring the First Amendment rights of Ohioans are upheld,” Taske said in a statement. He did not say whether NetChoice would appeal to the full Sixth Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court.
The trade group has spent years challenging state-level online safety laws across the country. Its legal strategy has been largely successful, with courts blocking similar laws in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Georgia. The Ohio ruling is the first major setback in that campaign.
Legal experts say the decision could embolden other states to pass similar laws. More than a dozen states have introduced or passed parental consent or age verification bills in the past two years. Many of those laws have been put on hold pending court challenges. The Ohio ruling could give those states a legal template to argue their laws are constitutional.
NetChoice argues that the laws violate the First Amendment by restricting access to lawful content. The group also says the laws are too vague, making it hard for companies to know what they need to do to comply. In the Ohio case, the appeals court rejected both arguments, at least at this stage.
The ruling is also a blow to the broader tech industry, which has opposed government efforts to regulate online speech, especially when it comes to minors. Tech companies have argued that they are already taking steps to protect children, and that government mandates are unnecessary and intrusive.
But the appeals court seemed unpersuaded by those arguments. “The state is not powerless to act simply because companies have taken some voluntary steps,” Clay wrote. “The record shows that more needs to be done.”
Why Ohio’s Law Is Different from Others (and Why It Stood)
So why did Ohio’s law survive when similar laws in other states did not? The answer lies in the details of the law itself and the arguments made by the state.
Ohio’s law focuses specifically on parental consent. It does not require social media companies to verify the age of every user, nor does it ban minors from accessing certain types of content. Instead, it simply requires that a parent or guardian give permission before a child under 16 can create an account.
The state argued that this approach is less restrictive than other laws because it does not block minors from seeing anything. It just adds a step that involves parents in the decision. The appeals court agreed, calling the requirement a “marginal burden” on speech.
In contrast, laws in Arkansas and Louisiana required social media companies to verify the age of all users, not just minors. Those laws also imposed stricter requirements, such as obtaining parental consent for users under 18. Courts in those states found the laws too broad and likely to violate the First Amendment.
Ohio’s law also targets specific harms that the state says are caused by social media use among minors. The state pointed to studies showing that excessive social media use can lead to depression, anxiety, and sleep problems in teenagers. It also cited cases of online exploitation and bullying.
The appeals court said these harms are real and that the state has a legitimate interest in addressing them. “The evidence of harm to children from social media is substantial and growing,” Clay wrote. “The state is entitled to take reasonable steps to protect its youngest citizens.”
The court also noted that the law includes exceptions that make it less restrictive. For example, it does not apply to platforms that are primarily used for educational purposes. It also allows minors to access social media without parental consent in emergencies, such as when they need to contact a parent or report abuse.
These exceptions helped convince the court that the law is not overly broad. “The legislature carefully crafted the law to target the harms it identified, while minimizing the impact on speech,” Batchelder wrote.
The dissenting judge argued that the law still goes too far. The dissenter said the state could achieve its goals with less restrictive measures, such as requiring platforms to offer parental controls or providing educational materials to parents. But the majority said those alternatives are not as effective as requiring consent.
The Legal Battle So Far: Previous Wins for Tech in Other States
The Ohio ruling stands in sharp contrast to NetChoice’s victories in other states. In Arkansas, a federal judge blocked the state’s age verification law in 2023, saying it likely violates the First Amendment. The judge said the law was too broad and could restrict access to content that is protected for adults.
Louisiana’s similar law was also blocked by a federal judge in 2024. The judge said the law was vague and could lead to companies blocking lawful content out of fear of being sued. Georgia’s law, which required parental consent for children under 18, was also put on hold.
In all those cases, the courts found that the laws were likely unconstitutional because they imposed too heavy a burden on speech. The Ohio appeals court took a different view, saying the burden is marginal and the state’s interest is strong.
Legal experts say the difference may be partly due to the composition of the appeals court panel. The Sixth Circuit panel that heard the Ohio case included two judges appointed by Democratic presidents and one appointed by a Republican. The two judges in the majority were appointed by Democrats, while the dissenter was appointed by a Republican.
But the experts caution against reading too much into political labels. “This is not a simple partisan issue,” said one legal analyst. “There are free speech concerns on both sides of the aisle. The court focused on the specifics of the law, not on politics.”
The Ohio ruling could also affect pending lawsuits in other states, including Texas and Florida. Both states have passed laws regulating social media platforms, but those laws are different from Ohio’s. Texas and Florida laws focus on how platforms moderate content, not on parental consent for minors. Those cases are still working their way through the courts.
NetChoice has also challenged a federal law, the Kids Online Safety Act, which would require platforms to take steps to protect minors. That law has not yet been passed by Congress, but if it does, it will likely face similar legal challenges.
The Ohio case is part of a broader national debate over children’s online safety. Polls show that a majority of Americans support requiring parental consent for minors to use social media. But civil liberties groups warn that such laws could be used to restrict speech and invade privacy.
The appeals court acknowledged these concerns but said the Ohio law strikes a reasonable balance. “The law does not give the government the power to decide what children can see or say online,” Clay wrote. “It simply gives parents that power, which is where it belongs.”
What Happens Next: Enforcement and Further Appeals
With the appeals court ruling, Ohio can now enforce the parental consent law while the case continues. The Ohio attorney general’s office said it will begin implementing the law immediately. Tech companies that do not comply could face fines of up to $10,000 per violation.
But the legal fight is far from over. NetChoice can ask the full Sixth Circuit to hear the case again, or it can appeal directly to the Supreme Court. The trade group has not said which path it will take, but legal experts expect it to continue fighting.
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of state parental consent laws for social media. In recent years, the Court has issued several decisions on social media and free speech, but those cases involved different issues, such as whether platforms can be held liable for user content.
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the Ohio case, it could set a national precedent. A ruling from the high court would either uphold or strike down similar laws across the country. Until then, the legal landscape will remain patchwork, with some states enforcing parental consent requirements and others not.
For now, Ohio parents will have the right to decide whether their children can use social media. The law requires platforms to get “verifiable parental consent,” which can be done through a variety of methods, such as signing a consent form, using a credit card, or calling a toll-free number.
Tech companies are likely to quickly update their systems to comply with the law. Meta, TikTok, and Snapchat already have some parental controls in place, but they will need to expand them to meet Ohio’s requirements. The companies have not yet commented on the ruling.
The Ohio case is being closely watched by other states that are considering similar laws. At least a dozen states have introduced parental consent or age verification bills in the past year. Many of those bills were put on hold pending the outcome of the Ohio case. Now that the appeals court has upheld the law, those states may move forward.
The ruling could also affect how other courts handle similar cases. Judges in other circuits are not bound by the Sixth Circuit’s decision, but they may find its reasoning persuasive. The legal fight over children’s online safety is likely to continue for years, with the Supreme Court ultimately having the final say.
In the meantime, Ohio’s law will serve as a test case. If it works as intended, it could become a model for other states. If it leads to unintended consequences, such as blocking access to legitimate content, it could be revised or struck down.
For now, the appeals court has given Ohio the green light to enforce its law. Parents in Ohio will soon have a say in whether their children can join social media. And big tech has suffered a rare legal setback in its campaign to keep state regulators at bay.
The case is NetChoice v. Yost, No. 24-3458, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the appeals court decide regarding Ohio's social media law?
The federal appeals court reversed a lower court's block on Ohio's law. This means the state can now enforce the law requiring parental consent for social media use by children under 16.
Who is challenging Ohio's social media law?
NetChoice, a trade group representing major tech companies like Meta, TikTok, and Snapchat, is challenging the law. They sued Ohio, arguing the law violates free speech protections.
Why did the appeals court rule in favor of enforcing the law?
The court found that the parental consent requirement is a minor burden on free speech. This burden is outweighed by the state's interest in protecting children from online harms like exploitation and mental health issues.
How does Ohio's law differ from similar laws in other states?
While similar laws in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Georgia were blocked, Ohio's law is the first to survive an initial court challenge and be reinstated by a federal appeals court. The details of the law and the court's interpretation of its impact on free speech are key differences.
What are the potential consequences for tech companies that don't comply?
Tech companies that fail to comply with Ohio's law could face fines. The law requires them to obtain verifiable parental consent before allowing children under 16 to use social media platforms or certain features.
What does this ruling mean for the future of online safety laws?
This decision could encourage other states to pass similar laws, as it provides a legal template for arguing their constitutionality. It represents a significant setback for NetChoice's legal strategy against such regulations.
Is this the final decision on Ohio's social media law?
No, this ruling only lifts the previous block, allowing enforcement to begin. The case will return to the district court for a full trial to determine the law's ultimate constitutionality.
