A federal appeals court just handed Big Tech a loss, ruling Ohio can enforce a law requiring social media companies to get parental consent before letting kids under 16 use their platforms — a direct challenge to an industry whose profits depend on accessing children without their parents' knowledge.
The stakes are straightforward: every minute a child spends on Instagram or TikTok without parental oversight is data harvested and attention monetized by companies that have no financial incentive to ask Mom or Dad first. Ohio's Social Media Parental Notification Act, passed in 2023 and briefly effective in January 2024 before a lower court froze it, simply requires platforms to verify age and obtain parental approval for minor users. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that freeze in a 2-1 decision Thursday, clearing the state to enforce the law again.
The tech industry didn't take this lying down. NetChoice — the trade group whose members include Meta, TikTok, and Alphabet's YouTube — had argued the law was unconstitutionally vague and violated minors' First Amendment rights. U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Clay wasn't buying it. "At bottom, the Act imposes a parental consent requirement," he wrote. "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."
NetChoice framed the ruling as a blow to privacy and constitutional rights, vowing to keep fighting. The group said it remains "fully confident that this unconstitutional law will ultimately be struck down permanently." Notice the framing: an industry lobby that makes its money vacuuming up children's data is casting itself as the guardian of those children's freedoms. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost called the decision one that "gives parents the tools to be involved and provide oversight."
The lower-court judge who originally blocked the law, U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley, had sided with NetChoice's argument that the statute restricted constitutionally protected speech. The appeals panel disagreed, finding the law narrowly written to serve Ohio's compelling interest in protecting children.
This is one front in a widening battle. Reuters and Newsmax both noted that governments worldwide — Australia among them — are moving to restrict children's social media access amid mounting concern about mental health and safety. Benzinga reported that Florida sued TikTok earlier this month, alleging the platform allowed underage users and misrepresented risks to children.
The real question isn't whether Big Tech will appeal — it will. The question is whether the courts will keep recognizing that parental consent is a modest burden on speech, or whether the First Amendment gets stretched into a blanket license for platforms to exploit minors. NetChoice has an array of legal challenges pending across multiple states, all aimed at blocking laws elected officials say are needed to protect kids. The lobbying class is working overtime.
One ruling is a crack. The industry's war chest is still very much intact.
