A federal appeals court has cleared the way for Ohio to enforce a groundbreaking law requiring social media platforms to obtain parental consent before allowing children under sixteen to create accounts and use their services. The ruling marks a significant development in the ongoing national debate over how to protect young people from the potential harms of social media while balancing constitutional free speech protections.
The decision came from a split panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, which voted two to one to overturn a lower court ruling that had blocked the law’s enforcement since early 2024. The appeals court determined that the Ohio Social Media Parental Notification Act does not violate the First Amendment rights of young users or the companies that operate these platforms, contrary to arguments made by the tech industry trade group that challenged the legislation.
The law, which was passed by Ohio’s legislature in 2023, requires operators of websites and online platforms that can reasonably be anticipated to be accessed by children under sixteen to implement age verification systems. The legislation provides an eleven-factor list to determine which websites fall under its jurisdiction, while also establishing certain exceptions for platforms that are primarily educational or otherwise serve different purposes.
Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson welcomed the court’s ruling, emphasizing the importance of parental involvement in children’s digital lives. “This decision gives parents the tools to be involved and provide oversight,” Wilson stated, framing the law as a practical measure to help families navigate the complexities of modern online environments. The attorney general’s office has consistently argued that the law merely requires platforms to facilitate parental involvement rather than restrict content, distinguishing it from more aggressive regulatory approaches in other jurisdictions.
The tech industry group NetChoice, which represents major social media companies including Meta Platforms, TikTok, Alphabet’s YouTube, and Snapchat, expressed disappointment with the ruling and signaled its intention to continue fighting the law through the courts. In a statement following the decision, NetChoice maintained that the court’s ruling threatens both the online privacy and constitutional rights of Ohio residents. The group said it “remains fully confident that this unconstitutional law will ultimately be struck down permanently,” indicating that further appeals are likely.
NetChoice had argued during the legal proceedings that the law was unconstitutionally vague and improperly restricted children’s access to content protected by the First Amendment. The group contended that age verification requirements impose burdensome obligations on platforms and could lead to decreased access to valuable information and educational content for young users. They also raised concerns about the privacy implications of collecting age-related data from users, arguing that such requirements could create security vulnerabilities and expose sensitive information.
The Sixth Circuit’s decision comes at a time of increasing global concern about the impact of social media on young people’s mental health and well-being. Governments around the world, including in Australia, have been implementing or considering restrictions on children’s access to social media platforms, reflecting a growing bipartisan consensus that existing voluntary measures by tech companies have been insufficient to address the risks young users face online.
Studies have increasingly linked extensive social media use among adolescents to various mental health challenges, including anxiety, depression, and sleep disruption. Lawmakers in multiple states have cited these findings in pushing for legislation that would give parents more control over their children’s online activities. The Ohio case represents one of the most significant legal tests of such laws, with implications for similar legislation being considered or implemented in other states.
The lower court judge who initially blocked the law, U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley, had expressed concerns that the legislation could lead to censorship and restrict minors’ access to constitutionally protected speech. Judge Marbley’s preliminary injunction prevented enforcement of the law while the legal challenge proceeded, allowing the appeals court to conduct a thorough review of the constitutional questions involved.
The dissenting judge on the Sixth Circuit panel argued that the majority had improperly dismissed First Amendment concerns raised by the law. The dissent highlighted potential chilling effects on free expression that could result from age verification requirements and the law’s broad applicability to various types of online content and services. This division within the court suggests that the legal questions raised by the Ohio law may ultimately require resolution by the Supreme Court if the case continues to be appealed.
For Ohio families, the ruling means that the parental notification requirements will now go into effect, potentially changing how young teenagers in the state access social media. Parents will need to provide explicit consent before their children under sixteen can create accounts on covered platforms, giving families more direct involvement in their children’s online activities. The law also includes provisions for parents to revoke consent and requires platforms to provide tools for parental oversight of children’s accounts.
The implementation of such age verification and parental consent requirements presents practical challenges for social media companies. These platforms must develop systems to verify the ages of their users without unnecessarily collecting or retaining sensitive personal information, particularly for users who may be minors. Companies must also establish processes for obtaining and managing parental consent while maintaining user privacy and security. Industry observers note that these operational requirements could be particularly burdensome for smaller platforms and startups that lack the resources of larger tech companies.
Critics of the law have raised concerns that age verification requirements could lead to decreased privacy for all users, not just minors, as platforms implement more comprehensive data collection practices. There are also questions about whether the law might inadvertently push young users toward less regulated platforms or encourage them to misrepresent their ages to bypass restrictions. Some child safety advocates, while supporting the goal of increased parental involvement, have questioned whether the law’s mechanisms are the most effective way to achieve that objective.
The broader legal landscape regarding children’s online safety laws remains in flux, with various federal and state initiatives facing similar constitutional challenges. The Ohio ruling may influence how courts evaluate other state laws addressing social media access for minors, though the specific provisions of each law and the legal arguments presented will ultimately determine their outcomes. Legal experts suggest that the Supreme Court may need to provide clearer guidance on how First Amendment principles apply to regulations designed to protect minors online, given the proliferation of such laws across the country.
