Ohio can implement a law requiring social media companies, including Meta Platforms’ (META.O), opens new tab Instagram, to obtain parental consent before allowing children under 16 to use their platforms, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Thursday.
A 2-1 panel of the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned, opens new tab a lower-court ruling that had put the law on hold at the request of the tech industry trade group NetChoice. The panel found the law did not violate free speech protections under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
NetChoice said in a statement that the court’s decision threatens the online privacy and constitutional rights of Ohio residents, but the group “remains fully confident that this unconstitutional law will ultimately be struck down permanently.”
Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson in a statement said the decision “gives parents the tools to be involved and provide oversight.”
The ruling comes as governments around the world, including in Australia, move to restrict children’s access to social media, reflecting growing concern among lawmakers about the platforms’ effect on young people’s health and safety.
The Ohio case is one of an array of legal challenges that NetChoice has been pursuing to prevent states from implementing laws the authorities say are needed to protect children from the mental health dangers posed by social media.
The Ohio law, known as the Social Media Parental Notification Act, was passed by the state’s legislature in 2023 and took effect in January 2024, only to be quickly blocked from being enforced by U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley.
The law requires operators of websites that can be reasonably anticipated to be accessed by children under 16 to verify their age. It provides an 11-factor list to determine whether a website falls within that definition, along with certain exceptions.
NetChoice, whose members include TikTok, Alphabet’s (GOOGL.O), opens new tab YouTube, and Facebook and Instagram-owner Meta, had argued the law was unconstitutionally vague and improperly restricted children’s access to content protected by the First Amendment.
