A federal appeals court declined to revisit its decision on Ohio's parental consent law for minors using social platforms. The move is a setback for NetChoice and major tech companies. Legal battles over youth access continue.
Digital publishers, social platforms, and content businesses face new compliance challenges after a federal appeals court refused to reconsider its decision upholding Ohio's Parental Notification By Social Media Operators Act. The law, known as HB33, requires parental consent before minors under 16 can create accounts on certain web services with social features. This ruling marks a significant defeat for NetChoice, an industry group representing major platforms such as Meta, YouTube, and TikTok, which had argued the law would restrict access to a broad range of constitutionally protected speech and complicate platform operations.
In June, a three-judge panel from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the statute by a 2-1 vote. NetChoice sought a rehearing before the full court, contending that the panel's decision conflicted with a 2011 Supreme Court ruling on minors' access to violent video games and failed to account for the many parental control tools already available. The group also warned that the law could impact not only large social media platforms but also smaller sites with social features, such as Goodreads.
The appellate court rejected NetChoice's petition, stating that the arguments had already been fully considered. Circuit Judge Kevin Ritz, who previously dissented, would have granted a new hearing. Earlier, U.S. District Court Judge Algenon Marbley had found the law unconstitutional and blocked its enforcement, citing concerns about vagueness and lack of tailoring to the goal of protecting minors. Ohio appealed, arguing that the law simply restricts minors' ability to enter into contracts with social platforms.
The two appellate judges who upheld the law issued separate opinions. Judge Eric Clay described the parental consent requirement as a marginal burden on speech, targeting the issue of children agreeing to platform terms without supervision. Judge Alice Batchelder noted that NetChoice failed to prove the law would violate rights in every application and questioned whether all covered services deserved the same constitutional protection. Both judges agreed that NetChoice was not the appropriate party to assert minors' rights in this case.
Judge Ritz, in his dissent, acknowledged the risks social media may pose to children but emphasized that these platforms are also spaces for protected speech. As of now, NetChoice has not indicated whether it will seek Supreme Court review. The legal landscape for youth access to social platforms remains unsettled, with other states also pursuing similar laws. For example, Nebraska is currently seeking to reinstate its own parental consent requirements for minors, as detailed in this recent report on ongoing legal efforts in Nebraska.
