Ohio social media parental consent law upheld by US appeals court

Constitutional free speech protections do not automatically prevent states from requiring parental consent before children access social media platforms, a US federal appeals court has ruled, reversing a lower court decision that blocked Ohio’s social media law.

The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on June 18 reversed a district court ruling that had struck down Ohio’s Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment in favour of the Ohio attorney general. The case remains captioned against former attorney general Dave Yost, who was the named defendant when the litigation began; Andy Wilson has served as Ohio attorney general since June 8, 2026. NetChoice, the trade association representing companies including Meta, TikTok, Snap, Google and X, had argued that the law restricted access to protected speech and was unconstitutionally vague. A majority of the appellate panel disagreed, holding that NetChoice had failed to establish that the law was facially unconstitutional.

“Because a majority of the panel agrees that NetChoice has failed to establish that the Act is facially unconstitutional, we REVERSE the district court’s judgment and REMAND with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Yost.”

The law, enacted in 2023, requires certain social media services to obtain parental consent before allowing children under 16 to create accounts. A district court had previously blocked the measure after finding that it burdened protected speech, failed strict scrutiny and was unconstitutionally vague. The appeals court has now overturned that ruling.

What the law does: The Act applies to websites and services that allow users to:

• Interact socially with other users;
• Create public or semi-public profiles;
• Build social connections with other users; and
• Create or post content viewable by others.

For covered services, the law requires operators to:

• Obtain “verifiable consent” from a parent or guardian before entering into a contract with a child under 16;
• Provide information about content moderation features;
• Allow parents to review those features later; and
• Deny access where parental consent is not obtained.

What the court said about free speech: The appeals court rejected the state’s argument that the law regulates only commercial activity and does not implicate the First Amendment.

The judges held that social media platforms engage in protected expressive activity when they curate, organise and recommend content to users. As a result, laws that affect how platforms distribute content can burden speech rights.

The court found that Ohio’s parental consent requirement does have some impact on protected expression because it may limit the ability of minors to access platforms and, in turn, reduce the audience that platforms can reach. However, the panel concluded that this burden was relatively limited and did…