• by Wendy Davis , June 19, 2026

In a 2-1 decision, a federal appellate panel ruled that Ohio can enforce a law that restricts teens' ability to use social-media platforms.

The decision, issued Thursday by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, reverses a ruling issued by U.S. District Court Judge Algenon Marbley, who found the law unconstitutional and issued an injunction blocking enforcement.

The Parental Notification By Social Media Operators Act, passed in 2023, prohibits some web services with social functionality from allowing minors under 16 to create accounts without parental permission. The statute generally covers operators of sites with social features (such as allowing users to create profiles and interact), and that are aimed at minors under 16 or are “reasonably anticipated” to be accessed by teens under 16.

The law exempts ecommerce sites that allow people to post reviews, and “established and widely recognized” media outlets that report news.

The industry group NetChoice challenged the statute, arguing that it was unconstitutional for several reasons -- including that it restricts minors' First Amendment right to express themselves and access speech, and restricts social platforms' constitutional right to disseminate speech.

The organization also said the law's scope was unconstitutionally vague. For instance, the group argued, although the law exempted "established and widely recognized media outlets," it did not define those terms.

Marbley blocked enforcement in January 2024, writing that the statute was "troublingly vague,” and its restrictions did not appear to be tailored to the goal of protecting minors from the potential harms of social media.

Ohio Attorney General David Yost appealed to the 6th Circuit. He argued on appeal that NetChoice -- which represents Meta, Google and other tech platforms -- wasn't in a position to argue that the law violated minors' First Amendment rights.

"The conflicts between social-media entities and children are too great to allow NetChoice to stand in children’s shoes," his office argued.

He also disputed that the law violates either minors' or NetChoice members' First Amendment rights, arguing that the parental-consent provisions merely restrict minors' ability to enter into contracts with social platforms.

Circuit Judges Eric Clay and Alice Batchelder sided against NetChoice and voted to allow enforcement.

Both judges agreed that NetChoice was not in a position to argue that the law violated minors' rights, but wrote separate opinions regarding whether the law violated NetChoice members' First Amendment rights.

"At bottom, the Act imposes a parental consent requirement," Clay wrote in the lead opinion. "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."

Batchelder essentially said in a separate concurrence that she rejected NetChoice's challenge because the group sought to strike down the statute in its entirety, but failed to prove that every application of the law would violate its members' rights.

"From the record below, I cannot assess the full scope of NetChoice’s members’ services covered by The Act, much less the scope of services offered by nonparties," she wrote, adding that some services, such as direct messaging "may not warrant the same kind of constitutional protection" as others, such as curating a social media feed.

Judge Kevin Ritz dissented, writing that he believes NetChoice is able to assert the First Amendment rights of its members' teen users, and that the law is unconstitutional.

"Although the websites the Act seeks to regulate may pose serious risks to children, these sites are also zones for constitutionally protected speech," Ritz wrote.

NetChoice's Paul Taske, director of the group's litigation center, stated Thursday that the organization is reviewing its options.

"An unconstitutional law protects no one, and we remain focused on ensuring the First Amendment rights of Ohioans are protected," Taske stated.

Ohio is one of numerous states to pass laws attempting to regulate social media use by minors.

Other states with comparable statutes include Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Nebraska, Mississippi, South Carolina, Utah, Texas and Tennessee.

Most district-court judges have blocked all or part of those measures, but state attorneys general have appealed.

This week's ruling marks the third time a federal appellate court has sided with state officials and allowed social-media restrictions to take effect.

Last year, the 5th Circuit and 11th Circuit allowed enforcement of laws in Mississippi and Florida.