Federal court rules Ohio can restrict teen access to social media

A panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has upheld an Ohio law requiring parental consent for children under 16 to create social media accounts. The decision reverses a previous block on the 2023 legislation, which had been challenged by industry trade group NetChoice on First Amendment grounds. This ruling marks a significant shift in the legal battle over state-level social media regulations and could set a precedent for how platforms manage minor users across the United States.

The Sixth Circuit's 71-page ruling allows Ohio’s social media regulations to proceed, concluding that while the law may burden speech, the state’s interest in online safety justifies the requirement for "verifiable" parental consent. Judge Eric Clay, writing for the majority, stated that the law targets the "multi-faceted problem" of children's unsupervised access to platforms that may exploit or harm them. The court also challenged the standing of NetChoice—which represents tech giants like Meta and YouTube—arguing that the organization’s profit-driven interests are often at odds with the best interests of the children it claimed to represent.

In his dissent, Judge Kevin Ritz supported the original lower court opinion that the law is unconstitutional and vague. Ritz argued that the state does not possess "free-floating power" to restrict the ideas children are exposed to and questioned how a parental consent mandate would actually mitigate issues like anxiety, body dysmorphia, or bullying. Meanwhile, industry representatives like Meta’s Jennifer Hanley highlighted existing safety features, such as default private accounts and messaging restrictions for teens, as evidence that platforms are already addressing these concerns without government intervention.

The ruling has sparked a range of reactions from political figures and the public, with U.S. Senator Jon Husted calling it a "big win" for protecting Ohio families. Conversely, NetChoice maintains that the state is "rationing online speech" and predicts the law will eventually be found unconstitutional. As Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson’s team reviews the ruling to determine an enforcement timeline, legal experts suggest the ongoing litigation across multiple states will likely require the U.S. Supreme Court to provide a final resolution on the matter.