A federal appeals court has reversed the injunction that kept Ohio's social media parental consent law on ice for more than two years, ruling that the tech industry's trade group failed to prove the statute unconstitutional. The 2-1 decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati sends the case back to the lower court with blunt instructions: enter judgment for Ohio.
The ruling hands Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson and the state's parents a concrete victory over NetChoice, the trade group that represents Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and other major platforms. For more than two years, those companies operated under a federal injunction that blocked the law before it could take effect. That shield is now gone.
Ohio's Social Media Parental Notification Act requires platforms to verify a user's age and obtain parental consent before opening accounts for children under 16. Republican Gov. Mike DeWine signed it into law in July 2023 as part of an $86.1 billion state budget bill, Newsmax reported. The law was supposed to take effect in January 2024. It never did.
NetChoice sued before the law could be enforced, arguing it was unconstitutional because it "imposes blanket parental-consent requirements for minors to access and engage in all manner of protected speech across a wide swath of websites." Chief U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley agreed, issuing an injunction and finding the law would impose financial harm on social media companies. He called the statute's language "capacious and subjective."
The Sixth Circuit panel saw it differently. In its ruling, the court stated plainly:
"NetChoice has failed to establish that the act is facially unconstitutional."
The panel also acknowledged the real-world stakes for young users. The court wrote that "for young people, who are at a pivotal stage in cognitive development, social media has been linked to issues with sleep, anxiety, body dysmorphia, depression, and bullying."
Judge Eric Clay, writing for the majority, described the law's requirements as proportionate to the problem Ohio identified. He wrote that the act "imposes a parental consent requirement" that "constitutes a marginal burden that precisely targets the multi-faceted problem that Ohio has identified."
That framing, a marginal burden, not a constitutional violation, is the core of the decision. Ohio argued the law was a legitimate exercise of the state's authority to regulate how companies contract with minors. It did not, the state maintained, violate the First Amendment. Two of the three judges agreed.
Judge Kevin Ritz dissented. He argued that the First Amendment interests of NetChoice and its member companies' minor users overlap, writing:
"The First Amendment interests of NetChoice overlap neatly with the First Amendment interests of its members' minor users."
That argument, that blocking children from platforms without parental permission also blocks their speech, has been the tech industry's primary weapon against these laws nationwide. NetChoice has used it to win injunctions in other states. In Ohio, it worked at the district court level. At the Sixth Circuit, it fell short.
NetChoice did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling. Whether the group seeks en banc review from the full Sixth Circuit or petitions the Supreme Court remains an open question. Federal courts across the country continue to wrestle with where parental authority ends and children's speech rights begin, a tension that recent Supreme Court decisions on parental rights have left unresolved.
Ohio AG Andy Wilson praised the decision the day after it came down. His statement was direct:
"This ruling is a win for Ohio families. The court agreed that parents, not social media companies, should get a say in what kids see online. We have an obligation to keep our children safe, and today, the most dangerous place for our kids is the internet."
Wilson's framing, parents versus social media companies, captures the political reality of this fight. The tech industry spent years and considerable legal resources arguing that age verification and parental consent requirements amount to censorship. Ohio countered that the state has always regulated how businesses deal with minors, from employment law to contract law. The Sixth Circuit sided with Ohio.
The practical consequences are straightforward. Social media companies, gaming apps, and other internet platforms that serve Ohio users will now need to verify ages and obtain parental consent before letting children under 16 create accounts. The law applies broadly, not just to the familiar social media giants but to sites that sell products or provide services to children.
How companies will comply remains to be seen. Judge Marbley's original injunction cited the financial burden of compliance as one reason to block the law. The Sixth Circuit evidently found that concern insufficient to override the state's interest in protecting minors. The details of age verification, what technology platforms must use, what data they must collect, and how they must handle it, are not spelled out in the available court language.
Ohio's law is part of a growing wave of state-level efforts to force platforms to treat children differently from adult users. Legislatures across the country have moved to require parental consent, age verification, or both. NetChoice has challenged many of these laws, often successfully at the trial court level. The Sixth Circuit ruling marks a significant break in that pattern.
The decision also arrives at a moment when federal courts are making consequential calls on politically charged questions with increasing frequency. Whether the issue is executive authority over federal institutions or state power to regulate technology companies, the judiciary sits at the center of fights that elected officials and voters cannot resolve through legislation alone.
For Ohio families, the ruling is simpler than any legal doctrine. A company that wants to open an account for a 14-year-old will now need that child's parent to say yes. That requirement existed on paper since July 2023. It was blocked before it could function. After more than two years of litigation, it can finally be enforced.
The state's argument was never complicated: parents have a right to know what their children are doing online, and the state has the authority to make companies ask before signing kids up. NetChoice called that censorship. The Sixth Circuit called it a marginal burden.
In Ohio, where federal enforcement actions and state-level governance have drawn national attention in recent months, the ruling adds another chapter to the state's role as a testing ground for conservative policy priorities. Protecting children from the documented harms of social media is one of the rare issues where public opinion runs well ahead of the legal system's willingness to act.
The law's penalties for non-compliance and the precise mechanics of enforcement remain areas the district court will need to address on remand. What is clear is that Ohio's legislature passed a law, a federal judge blocked it, and a higher court said the block was wrong. The system, for once, moved in the direction parents were asking it to move.
The broader legal landscape is far from settled. Other circuits may rule differently. NetChoice may seek Supreme Court review. But in Ohio, the question has been answered: parents get a say before Big Tech gets their kids. The only surprise is that it took two years and a federal appeals court to arrive at something most families would call common sense.
