Ohio’s social media parental consent law allowed to go forward

Social media, gaming and other internet app companies will now be required to verify a user’s age and get parental consent for children under 16 years old to use a platform.

“This ruling is a win for Ohio families,” Wilson said in a statement. ““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.”

In January 2024, an Ohio law that required social media operators and sites that sell things or provide a service to children to get parental consent before establishing accounts for children under 16 was supposed to take effect.

NetChoice, a trade group representing apps like Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, sued to stop the law and won an injunction that continues to stand as court battles are ongoing.

Chief U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio Algenon Marbley said in the ruling establishing the injunction that the law would bring financial harm to social media companies for compliance, noting those companies would face significant costs.

He also said the law’s language invited lawsuits by being “capacious and subjective.”

The federal appeals court panel disagreed.

“NetChoice has failed to establish that the act is facially unconstitutional,” the panel held.

It reversed a district court’s ruling and sent the case back to the district court with instructions to enter a judgment in favor of Ohio.

The state argued that the law was a “legitimate exercise of the state's prerogative to regulate contracting with minors,” and did not violate the First Amendment right to free speech.

The three-judge panel in its decision held that, “For young people, who are at a pivotal stage in cognitive development, social media has been linked to issues with sleep, anxiety, body dysmorphia, depression, and bullying.”

NetChoice did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday’s ruling.

NetChoice claimed the law was unconstitutional because it “imposes blanket parental-consent requirements for minors to access and engage in all manner of protected speech across a wide swath of websites,”

One of the judges in the three-judge panel dissented.

“The First Amendment interests of NetChoice overlap neatly with the First Amendment interests of its members’ minor users,” Appeals Court judge Kevin Ritz wrote in a dissent.