Sixth Circuit revives Ohio's parental consent law for kids' social media

A divided panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has reinstated Ohio’s Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act, vacating a previous injunction that had blocked the law. The legislation requires minors under the age of 16 to obtain parental consent before creating accounts on social media platforms such as those operated by Meta, Google, and YouTube. This ruling marks a significant shift in the legal landscape for the social media sector, as it prioritizes state-mandated parental oversight over the First Amendment challenges raised by industry trade groups.

The Sixth Circuit’s decision, led by U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Clay, overturned a lower court's finding that the Ohio law was unconstitutional. A central component of the ruling focused on the issue of standing, with the court determining that NetChoice—a trade association representing major tech firms—could not claim third-party standing on behalf of minor users. Judge Clay noted that NetChoice’s financial and legal incentives are "inextricably intertwined" with potential harms to children, such as the use of "lopsided and exploitative contracts" designed to maximize user engagement. The court concluded that the state’s interest in mitigating mental health risks and protecting children from predatory platform practices outweighed the association’s desire for unfettered access.

Applying a strict scrutiny analysis, the court acknowledged that while the law is a content-based restriction—partly due to its exemptions for news and current events outlets—it remains justified by the state's compelling interest in child safety. The opinion characterized the parental consent requirement as a "marginal burden" on social media companies rather than a form of censorship. Judge Clay emphasized that because children can often evade parental supervision through anonymous internet access, a prospective requirement for consent provides parents with a necessary tool to manage their children's digital footprints before they engage with potentially harmful platforms.

Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson hailed the ruling as a victory for families, asserting that parents should have the final say in what their children encounter online. However, the decision was not unanimous; U.S. Circuit Judge Kevin Ritz issued a dissent, arguing that the law creates an "insurmountable barrier to entry for online speech" and questioning its efficacy. Ritz pointed out that a one-time consent requirement might not actually prevent long-term issues like anxiety, body dysmorphia, or addiction. NetChoice, through litigation director Paul Taske, has vowed to continue its legal challenge, maintaining that the law remains an unconstitutional infringement on the First Amendment rights of Ohio citizens.