Ohio’s social media rules for minors are back from the dead, at least for now. A federal appeals court on Thursday ordered the state’s parental-consent requirement for teens on social platforms to be restored, reversing a lower-court block and sending the closely watched case back to the trial judge. The 2-1 ruling from the Cincinnati-based Sixth Circuit puts fresh legal heat on big platforms and reopens a national fight over how far states can go to police kids’ time online.
The Sixth Circuit panel concluded the statute is not unconstitutional on its face and instructed the lower court to unwind its prior order that had stopped the law from taking effect. That step could let Ohio start enforcing the measure against platforms while the lawsuit continues, according to The Associated Press.
NetChoice, the trade group that sued to block the law, first went to court in 2024. A federal judge in Columbus later found the statute was likely a First Amendment problem and, in April 2025, entered a permanent injunction that stopped it from being enforced. The district court’s opinion, which lays out the law’s language and the judge’s reasoning, is posted in the case record on Justia.
Writing for the appeals court, Judge Eric Clay said that “at bottom, the Act imposes a parental consent requirement,” and he described that obligation as a “marginal burden” aimed at the online harms Ohio lawmakers said they were trying to address. Judge Alice Batchelder agreed with the result and added that “a statute is not vague just because it has a wide berth,” according to The Associated Press.
What the law requires
The statute, formally called the Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act, covers online services that “target children” or that are reasonably expected to be accessed by children. It requires platforms to obtain verifiable parental consent before an unemancipated minor under 16 can agree to a site’s terms of service.
On top of that, the law tells platforms to give parents information about content-moderation tools and privacy features. It also lists specific factors courts may use when deciding whether a site is considered to be targeting kids. The full text of the statute and the trial judge’s discussion of its reach appear in the court record on Justia.
What happens next
The Sixth Circuit has sent the case back to the trial court with instructions to lift the block on enforcement. The district judge still has to take that procedural step before Ohio can actually start enforcing the consent rules against social media companies.
NetChoice, which represents several major online platforms and has challenged similar laws in other states, has argued throughout the lawsuit that Ohio’s statute would push operators to gather more sensitive information about users and would chill constitutionally protected speech. A summary of the group’s filings and the case timeline is posted by NetChoice.
Legal implications
The fight lands squarely in a broader First Amendment clash over kids, screens, and speech. Courts are being asked to weigh state efforts to shield minors against long-standing protections for access to information and expression.
The district court that first blocked the law leaned on Supreme Court precedent that safeguards minors’ access to speech when it explained why the statute raised serious constitutional concerns. In particular, the judge cited the high court’s decision in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants as a key reference point, and the opinion remains central to how courts analyze age-based limits on content. The Brown decision is available from the U.S. Supreme Court.
For now, state officials, parents, and tech companies are all watching to see how quickly the lower court moves, and whether either side asks for a rehearing before the full Sixth Circuit or tries to take the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court. However it plays out, the Ohio case is likely to influence how other states draft and defend their own rules for kids and social media.
