(Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Children under 16 may soon have their access to social media restricted after a federal appeals court upheld an Ohio law requiring parental consent to set up an account.
A panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit allowed the state’s social media law to go into effect. Passed in 2023, the ban would require “verifiable” parental consent for teens and children under 16 to access social media.
These regulations have been blocked for years. NetChoice, which represents companies such as YouTube and Meta, sued, claiming violations of the First Amendment.
“The majority generally concluded that the parental consent requirement was sufficient,” said Jonathan Entin, a law professor emeritus at Case Western Reserve University. “It may not be perfect, but it’s good enough.”
In a 71-page ruling, two of the three appellate judges agreed that the law could make speech more hard, but not enough to block it. Entin added that he is able to do this because the law is sufficiently tailored to the specific topic and internet security is a legitimate state concern.
“This requirement constitutes a marginal burden that precisely targets a multi-faceted problem identified by Ohio: unsupervised children’s consent to the terms of use of platforms that exploit and harm them,” Justice Eric Clay wrote in the main opinion.
He and senior judge Alice Batchelder argued that NetChoice lacked standing because it lacked the ability to represent the children.
“NetChoice cannot effectively advocate on behalf of Children,” (former Attorney General Dave Yost) argues, because NetChoice and its Members are interested in exploiting minors’ interactions on Member sites regardless of what outcome is in Children’s best interest. Yost is persuasive on this point, Clay said.
The jurors gave examples of social media being addicted to obtaining maximum profits at the expense of users.
“NetChoice’s interests are often at odds with those it seeks to represent,” Batchelder wrote.
Justice Kevin Ritz dissented with Clay and Senior Justice Alice Batchelder, affirming the lower court’s original opinion. He maintained that it was possible to file a lawsuit and added that the law regulates freedom of speech in various ways.
“I have no doubt that unrestricted access to social media can and does harm minors,” Ritz wrote. “But the state does not have the free power to limit the ideas that children can be exposed to.”
He also commented that the law did not actually address one of the key issues covered by the Clay decision.
“Neither the state nor Judge Clay’s opinion explains how this regime will prevent websites from causing ‘sleep problems, anxiety, body dysmorphia, depression, and abuse’ or ‘physiological effects such as substance abuse and gambling addiction,'” Ritz wrote.
After a federal judge struck down the law, finding it unconstitutional and unclear, Meta said it added special protections for children.
“These are default accounts for teens 18 and under with built-in security, private by default, with messaging restrictions, content restrictions, and anti-bullying features enabled,” Jennifer Hanley, head of security for North America at Meta, said in a 2025 interview.
Reaction
“We don’t have YouTube in our house because there’s just unlimited access to literally everything,” said Hilary Jackson, a Cleveland mom and conservative activist.
Moms like Jackson are figuring out how to keep their kids safe and sound online, which she says is a process of trial and error.
“Technology is developing at such a fast pace that even all the protections that currently exist will not be enough,” she said.
She is extremely vigilant about her two sons’ phone and computer utilize, but was unsupportive when lawmakers tried to go a step further by requiring age verification.
“I don’t think it’s up to the government or people who don’t know me and don’t know my children to determine what’s good for them on the Internet,” Jackson said.
But politicians like Ohio Republican Sen. Jon Husted are cheering on social media.
“This is a big win for Ohio families and an important step toward protecting our children from people who seek to harm them on social media,” Husted wrote. “As Lt. Governor, I pushed for this legislation to become law and I continue to work on this issue in the Senate.”
Jackson has mixed feelings about the verdict, but says the issue could be resolved if families were more involved.
“Parents, you need to step up and raise your children. It’s your job to monitor what your kids do online, not the government’s job,” the mom said.
In response, NetChoice stated in part that “the state actively rations speech online and dictates how citizens communicate.”
This will not be the end of the social media debate, as NetChoice added that it believes this bill will ultimately be found unconstitutional.
The organization has been successful in several states, but most of its lawsuits are still pending. The U.S. Supreme Court will likely have to weigh in on this.
For now, they say, Attorney General Andy Wilson’s team is still reviewing the ruling. They will soon learn more about when they will begin enforcing the law.
Follow WEWS House of Representatives reporter Morgan Trau X AND Facebook.
This article was originally published on News5Cleveland.com and are published in the Ohio Capital Journal under a content sharing agreement. Unlike other OCJ articles, it is not available for free republication on other news outlets because it is owned by WEWS in Cleveland.
