An American appeals court has cleared the path for Ohio to implement a law mandating that social media companies, including Meta's Instagram, must obtain parental consent before allowing children under 16 to use their platforms.
A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, in a 2-1 decision, reversed a lower court's ruling that had paused the law's enforcement following a challenge by the tech industry trade group NetChoice. The panel determined that the statute does not violate the free speech protections of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
This ruling comes as governments in multiple countries, including Australia, are taking steps to restrict children's social media use, reflecting growing legislative concern over these platforms' impact on the mental health, well-being, and safety of young people.
The Ohio case represents just one in a series of legal challenges initiated by NetChoice to block states from enforcing laws it deems problematic, which are designed to shield children from potential mental health harms associated with social media.
Named the Social Media Parental Notification Act, the Ohio law was passed by the state's legislature in 2023 and was set to take effect in January 2024, but was swiftly halted by U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley.
The regulation requires operators of websites likely to be accessed by children under 16 to verify users' ages. It lists 11 factors for determining if a site falls under this definition and outlines certain exemptions.
NetChoice, whose members include TikTok, Alphabet's YouTube, and Meta (the parent company of Facebook and Instagram), argued the law was unconstitutionally vague and improperly restricted children's access to content protected by the First Amendment.
However, 6th Circuit Judge Eric Clay stated that while the act does impose some restrictions on protected speech and limits how social media companies distribute content, its language is carefully tailored to address Ohio's compelling interest in protecting children.
"At bottom, the Act imposes a parental-consent requirement," he wrote. "That requirement is a mere inconvenience, and it is narrowly tailored to the multifaceted problem Ohio has identified: children consenting to terms and conditions of platforms that exploit and harm them without parental oversight."
Comments