Ohio Strikes Back — Parental Consent Returns

A bronze statue of Lady Justice holding scales and a sword, with law books and a gavel in the foreground

A federal appeals court just handed parents a rare win against Big Tech’s grip on our kids.

Story Snapshot

Ohio can again enforce a law that requires **parental consent** before kids under 16 get social media or gaming accounts.
A federal appeals court disagreed with a lower judge who had blocked the law as a First Amendment violation.
Big Tech trade group NetChoice, backed by companies like TikTok and Meta, is fighting to stop the law.
The ruling signals that courts may finally start siding with parents and states on kids’ online safety.

Appeals court revives Ohio’s push to put parents back in charge

A divided panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Ohio’s law requiring parental consent for children under 16 to use social media apps must be restored, clearing the way for enforcement once a lower court lifts its injunction.^[2] The appeals judges rejected claims that the law is flatly unconstitutional, calling it a parental consent rule that places only a “minimal” burden on social media companies while targeting the real problem of kids agreeing to harmful terms they do not understand.^[1]

The law, called the Social Media Parental Notification Act, was passed in 2023 as part of Ohio’s state budget after growing concerns about how “intentionally addictive” social platforms are hurting children’s mental health.^[5] Under the statute, platforms that target or are likely to be used by kids must verify a user’s age and obtain “verifiable” parental permission before allowing anyone under 16 to create an account.^[6] Companies must also share their privacy and content-moderation policies with parents so families know what could be censored or pushed on a child’s feed.^[16]

How Big Tech and a federal judge tried to stop the law

Before the law could take effect in January 2024, NetChoice, a lobbying group that represents major platforms like TikTok, Snapchat, and Meta, sued Ohio and convinced a federal district judge to block enforcement.^[6] The judge argued that the law likely violated the First Amendment and was “untargeted,” because it focused on account creation rather than specific features like endless scrolling or algorithmic feeds.^[10] He later went further, calling the law a “breathtakingly blunt instrument” and issuing a permanent injunction after siding with NetChoice on free-speech grounds.^[5]

That lower-court ruling treated the law as a government speech restriction instead of a tool to help parents decide which contracts and data practices are acceptable for their kids.^[6] Critics pointed out that this framing effectively gave Big Tech more power over minors’ online lives than their own parents have, all in the name of protecting children’s “right” to click “I agree” on legal terms they will never read. Ohio appealed, arguing that states have a strong interest in protecting children from exploitation and in backing up parents who want limits on their kids’ digital exposure.^[5]

What the new ruling says about parental rights and kids’ online speech

The Sixth Circuit’s 2–1 decision pushes back on the idea that any limit on a child’s access to a social platform is a First Amendment crisis, stressing instead that the law “at bottom” is a parental consent requirement.^[1] One judge wrote that the rule places a “marginal” burden on companies while directly addressing the specific danger Ohio identified: children’s unsupervised agreement to terms that let platforms collect data and shape behavior in ways parents never approved.^[2] Another judge in the majority added that a law is not “vague” simply because it covers a broad range of services.^[1]

A US appeals court cleared the way for Ohio to implement a law that requires social media companies, including Meta Platforms' Instagram, to obtain parental consent before allowing children under 16 to use their platforms https://t.co/Tx0lx4cB6n pic.twitter.com/zOy5nI1ucn

— Reuters Legal (@ReutersLegal) June 18, 2026

The appeals panel did not declare every detail of the statute perfect, but it rejected NetChoice’s effort to knock it out entirely before a full trial.^[2] Instead, the case returns to the district court with instructions that the block on enforcement be lifted, meaning Ohio can begin treating Big Tech more like any other powerful industry that must respect families’ wishes when dealing with minors.^[1] For parents worried about online predators, data mining, and woke content pushed at children without consent, this ruling marks a rare moment when the courts are moving in their direction.