A federal appeals court in Cincinnati has sided with Ohio in a closely contested legal battle over protections for children's social media use, reinstating restrictions that require technology companies to secure parental consent before young users can access major platforms. The Sixth Circuit's 2-1 decision delivered a setback to NetChoice, the industry trade group representing TikTok, Snapchat, Meta and other major technology firms, which has aggressively challenged similar legislation across multiple states.
The ruling represents a pivotal moment in the escalating tension between lawmakers seeking to regulate tech companies' practices around minors and the industry's defence of its commercial interests. NetChoice had previously secured court victories against comparable digital identification and parental notification laws in Arkansas, Louisiana and Georgia, making the Ohio outcome a notable reversal. The trade group signalled its determination to continue its legal campaign, arguing that the decision contradicts what it characterised as a clear national consensus opposing such restrictions.
In a statement, Paul Taske, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, contended that "an unconstitutional law protects no one" and pledged the group's commitment to safeguarding the First Amendment rights of Ohio residents. However, the appellate panel rejected these arguments, with Judge Eric Clay writing in the lead opinion that Ohio's law imposes only a "marginal burden" that directly addresses a legitimate public concern. Clay emphasised that the requirement for parental consent "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."
NetChoice had challenged the law on multiple grounds when it filed suit in 2024, arguing that the legislation was unconstitutionally broad, impermissibly vague and represented an unjustifiable infringement on free speech protections. The appellate judges were unmoved by these contentions, with Judge Alice Batchelder noting in her concurrence that "a statute is not vague just because it has a wide berth." This reasoning suggests the court was willing to give Ohio considerable latitude in crafting protective measures for vulnerable populations.
The Ohio Social Media Parental Notification Act became law in July 2023 as part of a US$86.1 billion state budget package signed by Republican Governor Mike DeWine. The legislation emerged from growing bipartisan concern about the psychological impact of social media on developing children, with then-Lieutenant Governor Jon Husted, now serving as a US senator, describing the platforms as "intentionally addictive" and harmful to young people's wellbeing. These statements reflected mounting evidence linking heavy social media use to depression, anxiety and other mental health challenges among adolescents.
Under the law's provisions, technology companies must obtain verifiable parental consent before allowing children to access social media and gaming applications. Platforms are also required to disclose their privacy guidelines to families, enabling parents to understand what content will be filtered, censored or moderated on their child's account. These requirements aim to restore parental authority over children's digital activities, a principle that has gained traction among policymakers concerned about the autonomy tech companies have exercised over young users' online experiences.
For Malaysian and Southeast Asian observers, the Ohio court decision carries significant implications. Regional governments including Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia have similarly grappled with questions about how to regulate social media's effects on children while respecting free expression principles. The US court's reasoning—that parental consent requirements constitute only a marginal burden on speech—may provide a legal template for Asian legislatures considering comparable measures. However, the decision also highlights how tech industry litigation strategies have proven effective in blocking such laws in some jurisdictions, suggesting prolonged legal uncertainty for any new regulations in the region.
Republican Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson immediately characterised the ruling as a victory for families, stating that the court had affirmed that "parents – not social media companies – should get a say in what kids see online." He framed the decision as essential to child safety, declaring that "the internet" represents "the most dangerous place for our kids" and arguing that the law provides parents with necessary tools for oversight and involvement in their children's digital lives. This framing reflects a broader political consensus among American conservatives and some Democrats that the tech industry has operated with insufficient accountability.
The appeals court's decision now returns the case to a lower court, which must vacate the block on the law's enforcement that had previously prevented Ohio from implementing its provisions. This procedural step clears the path for the law to take effect, though NetChoice's promise to continue fighting suggests further litigation remains possible. The trade group may pursue additional appeals or challenge specific aspects of the implementation.
From a broader perspective, the Ohio decision represents a crack in the tech industry's previously strong track record of defeating state-level social media regulation through litigation. While NetChoice has won comparable cases in other states, the Sixth Circuit's willingness to uphold Ohio's approach indicates that courts may increasingly recognise legitimate governmental interests in protecting children from addictive platform design. This shift could embolden other states and countries to enact similar legislation, potentially reshaping how technology companies engage with underage users globally and creating pressure for more substantial industry self-regulation or federal intervention.
