The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in a 2-1 decision on Thursday restored Ohio’s limits on the use of social media by youths under 16. The restrictions are part of the state’s Social Media Parental Notification Act (SMPNA).
The SMPNA requires social media and gaming companies to obtain verifiable parental consent in writing, before allowing anyone younger than 16 years old to use their apps. The requirements for consent are difficult for a child to copy or fabricate.
Ohio passed the SMPNA in 2023, with an effective start date of January 15, 2024. However, the law was suspended when NetChoice, an industry trade group representing Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, Amazon and other technology companies, filed suit to overturn the law.
In April 2025, the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio held in favor of NetChoice, agreeing that the SMPNA violated the First Amendment rights of minors and that the act was unconstitutionally vague. The court issued a permanent injunction enjoining Ohio from enforcing the act. The state appealed.
The majority acknowledged that the SMPNA is a content-based restriction, which would mean that the limited exceptions to freedom of expression—i.e. obscenity, incitement, and fighting words—does not apply. Therefore, the standard of review in this case is “strict scrutiny.” Writing for the majority, Judge Eric Clay stated:
Under strict scrutiny, [the state] must “prove that the restriction furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest…” Narrow tailoring for strict scrutiny means that the law must be “the least restrictive means” of achieving the objective.
…The Act imposes a parental consent requirement. 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. Parental consent will not always be narrowly tailored to the compelling interest in protecting minors’ wellbeing. It works here because the nature of the harm itself is that Children’s unsupervised use of social media puts them at risk of the adverse effects of prolonged and unregulated exposure.That premise differs from a case where parental consent is a tool to impose a value judgment about subject matter, subject to a parental veto. This opinion does not endorse states’ ability, for example, to censor information about American history or medical services. In this case, though, NetChoice has not shown that the Act’s parental-consent requirement violates its Members’ First Amendment rights, let alone that the Act violates the First Amendment on its face.
The potential for social media to harm children is the subject of a growing number of legislation and litigation. Earlier this month, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that the UK ban on social media for youth under 16 will take effect in the Spring of 2027. In May 2026, Breathitt County School District in eastern Kentucky settled a case with Meta over alleged harm to the mental health of its students. NetChoice has won fights over laws that are similar to Ohio’s in Arkansas, Louisiana and Georgia. Australia has banned social media access to everyone under age 16.
