The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in a 2:1 decision Restrictions on social media use by children under 16 were restored in Ohio on Thursday. The restrictions are part of government restrictions Social Media Parental Notification Act (SMPNA).
The SMPNA requires social media and gaming companies to do this verifiable parental consent in writing, in advance allow Anyone under 16 can use its apps. The requirements for consent are difficult for a child to imitate or fabricate.
Ohio successfully passed the SMPNA in 2023 Start date dated January 15, 2024. However, the law was suspended when NetChoicean industry trade group representing Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, Amazon and other technology companies, Lawsuit filed repeal the law.
In April 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ruled in favor of NetChoice, agreeing that the SMPNA violated the law First Amendment Rights of minors and that the law is unconstitutional. The court issued one permanent injunction Call on Ohio to enforce the law. The state appealed.
The majority recognized that the SMPNA is a content restriction, which would mean that the limited exceptions to free speech—i.e., obscenity, incitement, and combative language—do not apply. Therefore, the test standard in this case is “strict testing”. Justice Eric Clay wrote on behalf of the majority:
Under strict scrutiny, (the state) must “demonstrate that the restriction serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest…” Close scrutiny under strict scrutiny means that the law must be “the least restrictive means” of achieving the goal.
…The law requires parental consent. This requirement imposes a small burden that targets precisely the complex problem Ohio has identified: children’s unsupervised consent to terms and conditions of use on platforms that exploit and harm them. Parental consent will not always be closely tailored to the compelling interest in protecting the well-being of minors. This works here because the nature of the harm itself is that unsupervised use of social media exposes children to the negative effects of prolonged and unregulated exposure. This premise is different from a case in which parental consent is a tool for enforcing a value judgment about an object, subject to parental veto. This opinion does not advocate the ability of states to censor information about American history or medical services, for example. In this case, however, NetChoice has not demonstrated that the law’s parental consent requirement violates its members’ First Amendment rights, let alone that the law superficially violates the First Amendment.
The potential for social media to harm children is the subject of a growing body of legislation and litigation. Earlier this month, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that the Britain bans social media for young people under the age of 16 will come into force in spring 2027. As of May 2026, the Breathitt County School District in eastern Kentucky is in effect completed a case involving Meta for allegedly harming his students’ mental health. NetChoice won Fights on laws similar to Ohio’s in Arkansas, Louisiana and Georgia. Australia has forbidden Access to social media for everyone under 16 years old.
