In a pivotal ruling, a federal judge has permanently nullified an Ohio law that required parental consent for children and teenagers under the age of 16 to use social media platforms. The ruling was delivered by U.S. District Court Judge Algenon Marbley following a lawsuit initiated by NetChoice, a trade association advocating for prominent tech firms including TikTok, Snapchat, and Meta. The group’s lawsuit contended that the law unfairly restricted free speech and was excessively broad and vague.
The legal dispute centered on Ohio’s law, intended as a safeguard against potential detriments social media might pose to minors. Despite acknowledging the state’s intention, Judge Marbley ruled that the law overreached its constitutional bounds. He stated that while the state’s aim to protect its citizens is commendable, even such well-intended measures must comply with the constitutional framework of the United States.
Ohio’s Attorney General’s office, represented by spokesperson Bethany McCorkle, expressed that they are currently evaluating the ruling to decide on subsequent actions. Initially slated to be activated on January 15, 2024, the law’s enforcement had been paused by an earlier judicial decision, reflecting a broader trend observed in several states such as California, Arkansas, and Utah, where similar laws have faced judicial roadblocks initiated by NetChoice.
The contested legislation proposed that companies mandate parental approval for the use of social media and gaming applications by minors and required the provision of privacy policies to ensure families are aware of the content monitoring practices affecting their children’s profiles. This measure emerged from a substantial state budget bill signed into law by Republican Governor Mike DeWine in July 2023, pushed forward as a strategy to safeguard the mental health of young people. Former Republican Lieutenant Governor Jon Husted had ratified this initiative, denouncing social media as “intentionally addictive” and detrimental to youth.
Judge Marbley emphasized that his decision uniquely addressed the balance between two undeniable rights — the freedom of speech and expression of minors under the First Amendment, and the rights of parents to guide their children’s development without excessive government meddling. He highlighted judicial precedents illustrating that such legislative efforts do not inherently empower parents over their children’s communication but instead fit government oversight subject to parental agreement.
NetChoice celebrated the judicial outcome, with their director of litigation, Chris Marchese, asserting that the verdict reaffirms the First Amendment protections extended to both digital platforms’ rights to distribute content and individuals’ rights to access protected speech online. Marchese urged policymakers to acknowledge constitutional rights when crafting legislation.