COLUMBUS, Ohio — Kids 16 and under may soon be restricted from accessing social media after a federal appeals court upheld an Ohio law requiring parental consent to make an account.
A panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has allowed for the state's social media regulations to go into effect. Passed in 2023, the ban would have required “verifiable” parental consent for teens and kids under 16 to access social media.
For years, those regulations have been blocked. NetChoice, which represents companies like YouTube and Meta, sued, saying it violated the First Amendment.
RELATED: Judge blocks Ohio law requiring parental consent for teen social media use
"The majority basically said that the parental consent requirement is good enough," retired Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Entin said. "It may not be perfect, but it's good enough."
In a 71-page ruling, two of three appellate judges agreed that the law may burden speech, but not enough to block it. Entin added that they are able to do so because the law is tailored enough to a specific topic, and online safety is a valid concern for the state.
"That requirement constitutes a marginal burden that precisely targets the multi-faceted problem that Ohio has identified: Children's unsupervised assent to terms and conditions for use of platforms that take advantage of and harm them," Judge Eric Clay wrote in the lead opinion.
He and Senior Judge Alice Batchelder argued that NetChoice did not have standing to sue, as they don't have the ability to represent kids.
"NetChoice cannot effectively advocate on behalf of Children Users, [former Attorney General Dave Yost] submits, because NetChoice and its Members are interested in exploiting minors' engagement with Members' sites regardless of what outcome is in the Children Users' best interests. Yost is persuasive on that point," Clay said.
The judges brought up examples of how social media is made to be addictive, trying to earn the most profit at users' expense.
RELATED: Ohio bill would require addiction warning labels on social media platforms
"NetChoice's interests are often opposed to the interests of those it seeks to represent," Batchelder wrote.
Judge Kevin Ritz dissented from Clay and Senior Judge Alice Batchelder, supporting the lower court's original opinion. He argued there was standing to sue, and added that the law is concerning in a variety of ways to the freedom of speech.
"I do not doubt that unfettered social media access can and does harm minors," Ritz wrote. "But the state does not have a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed."
He also addressed how the law doesn't actually deal with one of the core issues in Clay's decision.
"Neither the state nor Judge Clay's opinion explains how this regime will prevent the websites from causing 'issues with sleep, anxiety, body dysmorphia, depression, and bullying' or 'physiological effects like those from substance and gambling addictions,'" Ritz wrote.
After a federal judge stopped the law, agreeing it was unconstitutional and vague, Meta said that they added specific safety features for kids.
"These are default accounts for teens 18 and under with built-in protections, private by default, messaging restrictions, content restrictions, bullying prevention features turned on," Jennifer Hanley, Meta's head of North American safety, said in an interview in 2025.
Reaction
"YouTube is not a thing in our house, because there's just unfettered access to literally anything," Hilary Jackson, a Cleveland mom and conservative activist, said.
Moms like Jackson have been managing how to keep their kids safe online, which she says has been through trial and error.
"Technology is evolving at such a rapid rate where even all of the safeguards that currently exist aren't enough," she said.
She is hypervigilant about her two sons' phone and computer usage, but she wasn't supportive when lawmakers tried to take it a step further by requiring age verification.
"I don't think that it's up to the government or people that don't know me and don't know my children, to determine what is good online for them to see," Jackson said.
But politicians like U.S. Senator Jon Husted are cheering on social media.
"This is a big win for Ohio families and an important step toward protecting our kids from people who want to do them harm on social media," Husted wrote. "I pushed for this legislation to become law as Lt. Governor, and I’m continuing to work on this issue in the Senate."
Jackson has mixed feelings about the ruling, but says this problem could be solved if families were more involved.
"Parents, you've got to step up and parent your kids. It is your job to monitor what your kids are doing online, not the government's job," the mom said.
NetChoice responded, saying in part that "the state is actively rationing online speech and dictating how citizens communicate.”
This will not be the end of the social media debate, as NetChoice added that they believe this law will be ruled unconstitutional eventually.
The organization has been successful in a handful of states, but most of its litigation is still ongoing. The U.S. Supreme Court will likely need to weigh in.
For now, Attorney General Andy Wilson's team is still reviewing the ruling, they said. They will know more soon about when they will start enforcement.
Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on Twitter and Facebook.
