Ohio’s effort to require parental permission before children under 16 can open social media accounts remains frozen for the time being. On Aug. 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit agreed to temporarily pause its earlier decision, keeping the law from taking effect while a technology industry group prepares to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. NetChoice case summary, August 2026.
Ohio lawmakers enacted the Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act in 2023 amid growing concern about the effects of social media on young people. Supporters pointed to research linking heavy platform use to rising rates of anxiety, depression and body-image problems among teens, along with the risk of online predators, weak privacy protections for minors and design features – such as endless scrolling and constant notifications – intended to maximize time spent online. The statute was framed as a way to give parents a clearer role before their children under 16 could create accounts and agree to the terms of service on platforms that allow social interaction and public posting. AP News, June 2026
The law applies to online services that either target children or are reasonably expected to be used by those under 16, such as social media and gaming apps. Covered companies must verify a user’s age and obtain verifiable consent from a parent or guardian before allowing an under-16 account. Certain news sites and product-review platforms are exempt. An Ohio federal trial court blocked the law in 2025, concluding it improperly restricted speech. In June 2026 a divided three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling, finding that the industry group challenging the statute had not shown the measure was unconstitutional on its face. One judge described the consent requirement as a limited step aimed at the problem of children agreeing to complex terms without adult oversight. A dissenting judge called the approach too broad. 6th Circuit analysis, 2026
Those who favor the law argue it simply restores a measure of parental involvement in an environment where platforms have strong commercial incentives to attract young users. They view the consent step as a practical response to documented harms rather than a ban on access. Critics, including the industry group NetChoice, counter that the requirement burdens the First Amendment rights of minors to receive and share information and of platforms to host speech. They contend the law is vague about which sites are covered, that parents already have tools to supervise their children’s online activity and that similar state laws have been struck down elsewhere. MediaPost, August 2026
The recent court pause means the parental-consent rules cannot be enforced while the industry seeks Supreme Court review. Similar measures in other states have produced conflicting results, leaving the constitutional limits of age-based restrictions unsettled nationwide. Whether the high court ultimately takes the Ohio case and how it balances protecting young users against preserving open access to digital speech will shape the rules that families and platforms face for years to come. For now the outcome remains uncertain, even as the conversation continues in homes and courtrooms across the country.
For more information about Larry Zukerman, Adam Brown and the law firm of Zukerman, Lear, Murray & Brown, Co., LPA, visit the firm’s website at zukerman-law.com.
Content provided by advertising partner.
