The battle over whether parents should have more control over their children’s social media accounts is far from over and may actually be heating up. On April 16, 2025, a federal judge permanently blocked Ohio’s so-called teen social media law, which had been scheduled to take effect in January 2024. Ohio is not the only state to have had their teen social media law struck down by federal courts as unconstitutional. States that have had their teen social media law struck down in the last year include Arkansas, California, Maryland, Mississippi, Texas, and Utah. In the past year alone, numerous states passed different versions of teen social media laws, which generally aim at regulating the use of social media by children under 16 years of age by among other things imposing age restrictions, requiring parental consent, mandating default private account settings for minors to protect their privacy, and restricting the collection of personal data from minors. Florida’s SB 3 went into effect on January 1, 2025, for example. Although more and more states are passing their own version of teen social media law, technological companies are fighting hard to make sure these laws do not see the light of day. In a complaint filed on February 3, 2025, NetChoice challenged Maryland’s law on constitutional grounds. In March 2025, NetChoice secured its second permanent injunction when a federal judge in Arkansas issued a permanent injunction blocking a similar law in the state. Which side will ultimately prevail in this on-going legal battle remains to be seen.
What is Ohio’s Social Media Law About?
In July 2023, Ohio’s General Assembly approved the Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act, Ohio Rev. Code § 1349.09(B)(1) (the Act). The Act was signed into law by Governor Mike DeWine as part of the 2023-24 executive budget and was scheduled to take effect on January 15, 2024. As described on the Ohio Governor’s website, under the Act companies must: (i) create a method to determine whether the user is a child under the age of 16; (ii) obtain verifiable parental or legal guardian consent; and (iii) send written confirmation of the consent to the parent or legal guardian. If the user indicates that they are under the age of 16, the following methods can be used for verification: (i) sign a digital form consenting to the terms of service; (ii) use a credit card, debit card, or other online payment system; (iii) call a toll-free telephone number; (iv) connect to trained personnel via video-conference; or (v) check a form of government-issued identification. The law applies only to social media and online gaming/activities companies accessed by children. The law does not apply to E-commerce platforms and media outlets. The new law was forward-looking and did not require operators to notify parents about accounts created before January 15, 2024.
What Did NetChoice Allege in Its Complaint?
In a January 2024 complaint, NetChoice alleged that the law violated First and Fourteenth Amendment protections of the US Constitution by requiring people in Ohio to hand over personal data in order to access content. On January 9, 2024, Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley, the US District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted NetChoice’s request to temporarily stop the Social Media Parental Notification Act from being enforced beginning January 15 while their request for a preliminary injunction is pending. On February 12, Judge Marbley granted a preliminary injunction in the case, followed now by a permanent injunction, on April 17, 2025.
What Did the Court Decide? Why Did the Court Issue a Permanent Injunction?
Judge Marbley held that the Act was unconstitutional and enjoined the Ohio Attorney General from implementing and enforcing the law. Specifically, the judge concluded that the law violated the First Amendment (freedom of speech) and the Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process Clause). According to the judge, the First Amendment was implicated because the law would infringe on minors’ rights to both access and produce First Amendment Protected Speech. Judge Marbley also concluded that the law ran afoul of the Due Process Clause because it was overly broad and vague. “The need for clarity is particularly acute when law restricts speech,” Judge Marbley noted.
Is the Ohio Decision Consistent With National Trends?
Judge Marbley’s decision is in line with the trend across the country. So far, teen social media laws do not appear to be faring well in federal courts.
Arkansas
Arkansas’ attempts at regulating minors’ access to social media have been struck down twice on constitutional grounds. On March 31, 2025, a federal court struck down Arkansas’ Social Media Safety Act (SB 689) as unconstitutional. SB 689 was reportedly the first law of its kind in the nation. According to the decision delivered by US District Judge Timothy L Brooks, Act 689, if implemented, “would violate the First Amendment rights of Arkansans because it is a facially content-based restriction on speech that is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest” and “would also violate the due process rights of Plaintiffs’ members because it is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Judge Brooks permanently enjoined Arkansas from enforcing the law.
California
In California, a pause on SB 976 (Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act) is in effect. Governor Newsom signed SB 976 into law in September 2024. NetChoice challenged the law in a lawsuit filed on November 12, 2024. On January 28, 2025, the Ninth Circuit blocked the law until April of 2025. On April 2, 2025, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in NetChoice v. Bonta, on the constitutionality of two provisions of SB 976.
Utah
In 2023, the Utah legislature passed SB 152 and HB 311 to regulate certain aspects of social media. Following legal challenges that resulted in an injunction against the said laws, Utah’s legislature went back to the drawing board, and in 2024, passed the Utah Minor Protection in Social Media Act (the Act): (HB 464 Social Media Amendments and SB 194 Social Media Regulation Amendments). The Act is aimed at protecting minors on social media platforms by regulating minors’ access to social media platforms. Among other things, the Act imposed a requirement for social media companies to verify the ages of users and implement parental controls on minor accounts. Scheduled to take effect on October 1, 2024, the Act was intended to partially replace Utah’s Social Media Regulation Act of 2023, which the State repealed after NetChoice and other stakeholders filed separate cases challenging its constitutionality. On May 3, 2024, NetChoice and a group of Utah social media users filed a second complaint challenging the constitutionality of the Act. On September 10, 2024. Chief Judge Robert J. Shelby for the US District Court for the District of Utah granted NetChoice’s request for a preliminary injunction effectively halting the implementation of the Act.
Maryland
Maryland’s Age Appropriate Design Code Act (the Act) requires entities that offer an online product reasonably likely to be accessed by children to complete certain data protection impact assessment by April 1, 2026. The Act requires certain privacy protections for certain online products, prohibits certain data collection and sharing practices, and authorizes certain monitoring practices to allow a child’s parent or guardian to monitor the child’s online activity or location without providing an obvious signal to the child. NetChoice is challenging Maryland’s law. In a complaint filed on February 3, 2025, NetChoice raised constitutional challenges against Maryland’s Act.
Conclusion
Teen social media laws raise timely questions about the relationship between social media, human rights, and constitutional rights. Teen social media laws also raise interesting and important questions about where parental rights and duties stop and the rights of children start in a world increasingly bombarded with by social media and emerging technologies. In a March 25, 2025, letter to Maryland Attorney General Brown, more than a dozen parents of kids impacted by social media harms urged the state’s attorney general to vigorously enforce and defend the law in court. “Our families have experienced the pain caused by the lack of oversight and accountability for online products that the Maryland Kids Code sought to fix. Now, we are concerned that kids and families will still be left waiting and remain at risk,” the Maryland parents wrote in the letter.
Undoubtedly, the evolution of social media offers challenges and opportunities for individuals, groups, and policy makers. States are likely to continue to try to refine the so-called teen social medial laws in an effort to make them withstand future constitutional challenges. It has not been all losses for states. In March 2025, Chief US District Judge Mark E. Walker rejected a request for a preliminary injunction that would have temporarily blocked Florida’s ban from taking effect. For those in favor of teen social medial laws, it is all about protecting minors from harm. “This law aims to give parents more control over their children creating new social media accounts,” Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said in a December 2023 press release. For tech industry groups such as NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, it is all about defending fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. “The decision confirms that the First Amendment protects both websites’ right to disseminate content and Americans’ right to engage with protected speech online, and policymakers must respect constitutional rights when legislating,” said Chris Marchese, NetChoice’s director of litigation, in a statement on X (formerly Twitter) following the decision by a US District Court in NetChoice v. Yost permanently striking down Ohio’s age verification law.
Uche Ewelukwa Ofodile (SJD, Harvard) holds the E.J. Ball Endowed Chair at the University of Arkansas School of Law where she has taught a broad range of courses including Public International Law. She is a life member of the Council on Foreign Relations and was a two-time Senior Fellow of the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
