Ohio’s parental – A divided panel of the U.S. Sixth Circuit ordered Ohio’s law requiring parental consent for children under 16 to use social media apps to be restored, vacating a lower-court block on enforcement. The decision is a setback for NetChoice, which has challenged si
For the third time. a court fight over children and social media hit Ohio’s doorstep in a way that feels immediate: Thursday’s decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals did not end the legal battle. but it shifted momentum—ordering the parental-consent requirement to be restored and undoing an enforcement block.
The Ohio law targets social media and gaming apps. requiring children under 16 to obtain parental permission to use them. and requiring companies to provide their privacy guidelines so families can understand what content would be censored or moderated on a child’s profile. The Sixth Circuit’s panel. in a 2-1 decision. disagreed with a challenge brought by NetChoice and sent the law back to a lower court with instructions to have the block on enforcement vacated.
NetChoice. the trade group representing TikTok. Snapchat. Meta. and other major tech companies. said the ruling cut against what it described as a clear national consensus. The group said it would keep fighting. Paul Taske. director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. said: “An unconstitutional law protects no one. and we remain focused on ensuring the First Amendment rights of Ohioans are protected.”.
NetChoice’s lawsuit, filed in 2024, argued Ohio’s measure was overly broad, vague, and an unconstitutional impediment to free speech. The Sixth Circuit’s majority found otherwise.
Writing for the lead opinion. Judge Eric Clay said the law’s parental-consent requirement was the key point and that the burden it imposed was limited. “At bottom, the Act imposes a parental consent requirement,” he wrote. “That requirement constitutes a marginal burden that precisely targets the multi-faceted problem that Ohio has identified: Children’s unsupervised assent to terms and conditions for use of platforms that take advantage of and harm them.”.
Judge Alice Batchelder agreed, adding that the law’s breadth did not automatically make it unclear. “A statute is not vague just because it has a wide berth,” she wrote.
The case lands in a legal landscape that has been hard for NetChoice to predict. The trade group has previously won court victories against identical digital identification laws in other states. including Arkansas. Louisiana and Georgia. Thursday’s setback in Ohio underscores that those battles are not moving in lockstep.
Ohio’s law—known as the Social Media Parental Notification Act—was folded into an $86.1 billion state budget bill. Republican Gov. Mike DeWine signed it in July 2023. The administration defended the measure as protection for children’s mental health, with then-Lt. Gov. Jon Husted—now a U.S. senator—arguing at the time that social media was “intentionally addictive” and harmful to kids.
In court, the central tension is about who should control the terms of children’s online access: the Ohio government and its allies say parents should have the tools to supervise, while tech industry challengers say the rules interfere with free speech.
Ohio’s Republican Attorney General Andy Wilson called Thursday’s ruling “a win for Ohio families. ” and framed it as a shift of power back toward households rather than platforms. “The court agreed that parents — not social media companies — should get a say in what kids see online. ” he said in a statement. “We have an obligation to keep our children safe. and today. the most dangerous place for our kids is the internet. This decision gives parents the tools to be involved and provide oversight.”.
The practical outcome of Thursday’s decision is clear: Ohio’s law must be brought back. and enforcement can continue unless a lower court revisits the issue after the appeals court’s order. For NetChoice. it means more time in the fight—trying again to overturn a rule that Ohio says is built for supervision. not restriction.
Ohio Sixth Circuit social media parental consent NetChoice TikTok Snapchat Meta Andy Wilson Mike DeWine Jon Husted First Amendment children under 16 Social Media Parental Notification Act
So basically kids gotta ask mom and dad now? Wild.
I don’t get why they’re still fighting about this. If the court says it’s coming back, shouldn’t everyone just follow it? My kid is on apps anyway, this feels like a big nothing burger.
Wait, I thought the law was blocked already? Now it’s restored? This is the part where I lose track. Also “privacy guidelines” sounds like companies already tell parents what’s moderated, so how is that even new?
This is gonna end up helping the pedos or something, watch. They keep saying First Amendment but what about parents’ rights, like seriously. I swear these groups always win by delaying, and then kids get on everything before the court even finishes.