Federal Ruling Shuts Down Child Social Media Law in Ohio

A federal judge struck down Ohio’s social media parental consent law this week, declaring it unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds and delivering a major blow to efforts aimed at limiting youth access to platforms like TikTok and Instagram.

Quick Takes

Judge Algenon L. Marbley permanently blocked Ohio’s law requiring parental consent for children under 16 to use social media, ruling it violates First Amendment rights.
The decision marks another victory for tech industry group NetChoice, which has successfully challenged similar laws in Utah, Arkansas, and California.
The law would have required platforms to verify users’ ages with government ID, credit cards, or digital consent forms.
State lawmakers are now considering alternative approaches.
State officials are reviewing the decision and considering potential next steps, including appeals.

Constitutional Rights and Child Protection Efforts

US District Court Judge Algenon L. Marbley permanently struck down Ohio’s Social Media Parental Notification Act, delivering a decisive victory to tech companies while frustrating state officials who championed the measure as crucial protection for youth mental health. The law, which was passed as part of an $86.1 billion state budget bill signed by Republican Governor Mike DeWine in July 2023, would have required parental permission for children under 16 to access social media platforms and gaming apps.

The court determined that the law represented a content-based restriction that failed to meet strict scrutiny standards required under the First Amendment. Judge Marbley acknowledged the state’s good intentions but ruled the measure was constitutionally flawed, either underinclusive or overinclusive in achieving its stated purpose. The legislation was originally scheduled to take effect on January 15, 2024, but enforcement had been temporarily halted pending legal review.

A judge blocked an Ohio law requiring parental consent for kids under 16 to access social media pic.twitter.com/dwihFN1teB

— Dexerto (@Dexerto) April 18, 2025

NetChoice Secures Another Legal Victory

The lawsuit was brought by NetChoice, a tech industry trade group representing major social media companies including TikTok, Meta, X Corp., Snapchat, and Google. The organization has successfully challenged similar laws across the country, arguing that age verification requirements and access restrictions violate constitutional free speech protections. This ruling adds Ohio to the growing list of states where courts have blocked such legislation.

“NetChoice’s victory in Ohio joins federal courts nationwide in finding age verification and barriers to lawful information unconstitutional,” Director of Litigation Chris Marchese stated. “The decision confirms that the First Amendment protects both websites’ right to disseminate content and American’s right to engage with protected speech online, and policymakers must respect constitutional rights when legislating.”

The lawsuit, officially titled NetChoice, LLC v. Yost, challenged specific provisions that would have required social media platforms to obtain verifiable parental consent before allowing users under 16 to create new accounts. The verification methods would have included government-issued identification, credit card information, or digital consent forms, which NetChoice argued presented privacy concerns and implementation challenges.

What Now?

The Ohio Attorney General’s office is currently reviewing the decision and considering potential next steps, which could include appealing the ruling to a higher court. Meanwhile, state lawmakers are exploring alternative approaches to address concerns about youth social media use, including a proposed bill that would shift the consent requirement to app stores rather than individual platforms, potentially avoiding some of the constitutional issues raised in the court’s decision.

National Implications for Social Media Regulation

The Ohio decision highlights the ongoing national struggle to balance concerns about social media’s impact on children with constitutional rights. Judge Marbley’s ruling specifically addressed the state’s evidence regarding social media harms, noting it established correlation but not causation—an important distinction in determining whether the law’s restrictions were sufficiently justified to override First Amendment protections.

The court emphasized that First Amendment protections typically “are no less applicable when government seeks to control the flow of information to minors.” This foundational principle has formed the basis for similar rulings in other states, creating significant legal obstacles for lawmakers seeking to regulate youth access to social media platforms through age verification or parental consent requirements.

As more states grapple with these issues, the consistent judicial response suggests that constitutional challenges will likely continue to block broad regulatory approaches. This pattern may eventually push the debate to federal courts of appeal or potentially the Supreme Court, where broader precedents about online speech and access restrictions could be established.