• Download the judgment here. 

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 not render the law unconstitutional on its face. In the court’s view, the law regulates children’s ability to enter into agreements with social media companies rather than directly restricting particular speech or viewpoints. 

Why the court upheld the law: Despite finding that the law affects protected expression, the court concluded that NetChoice had not shown that the statute was unconstitutional.

The judgment stated:

• “NetChoice has not shown that the Act’s parental-consent requirement violates its Members’ First Amendment rights, let alone that the Act violates the First Amendment on its face.”
• The law “imposes a parental consent requirement” but that requirement “constitutes a marginal burden” directed at “Children’s unsupervised assent to terms and conditions for use of platforms that take advantage of and harm them.”
• “Parental consent will not always be narrowly tailored to the compelling interest in protecting minors’ wellbeing. It works here because the nature of the harm itself is that Children’s unsupervised use of social media puts them at risk of the adverse effects of prolonged and unregulated exposure.”

Concerns cited by Ohio: The judgment records Ohio’s arguments that social media can expose minors to:

• Mental health harms, including anxiety, depression and bullying;
• Addiction-like effects associated with prolonged use;
• Sexual predators and online grooming; and
• Contractual terms that may disadvantage young users.

The court also referred to evidence concerning platform features such as “push notifications, autoplay, infinite scroll” and recommendation algorithms that “maximize engagement”. It further noted evidence that major platforms generate billions of dollars in advertising revenue from young users. The ruling allows Ohio to enforce the law unless a higher court intervenes.

Why does this matter: The ruling marks one of the most significant victories for a US state defending a social media parental consent law against a constitutional challenge. Recently, NetChoice has successfully blocked or delayed similar laws in states like Arkansas and California, often arguing that they restrict access to protected speech online. 

However, the court reached a different conclusion here, finding that Ohio’s law imposes only a limited burden on speech while advancing the state’s interest in protecting minors. The decision also comes as governments in Australia, the UK, and several Indian states pursue age-verification and age-based access requirements for social media platforms.

Also read:

• India Plans Three-Tier Social Media Restrictions Rather Than Complete Ban for Children Under 18: Report
• How are tech companies and experts reacting to the UK’s proposed social media ban for under-16s?
• Decoding Meta’s Teen Engagement Strategy Through Internal Documents Revealed In Landmark US Trial