On June 18, 2026, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed a district court injunction and held that Ohio's Parental Notification by Social…
On June 18, 2026, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed a district court injunction and held that Ohio's Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act is not facially unconstitutional. The 2-1 decision, authored by Judge Eric Clay, clears the way for state enforcement of a statute that had been sidelined since shortly after its enactment, and it materially changes the compliance landscape for social media operators whose services are reasonably expected to be accessed by Ohio children under 16.
The majority concluded that the Act imposes only a limited burden on protected speech and is narrowly tailored to advance Ohio's interest in protecting children who use social media. In reaching that conclusion, the panel rejected the broader First Amendment challenge advanced by NetChoice, the trade association representing many of the largest platforms. The court further held that NetChoice lacked standing to assert the First Amendment rights of minor users, narrowing the scope of the facial attack and leaving the statute intact against the association's principal arguments.
Under the reinstated Act, covered operators must verify the ages of prospective users and obtain verifiable parental consent before permitting a minor under 16 to create an account. The obligation applies to platforms that are reasonably expected to be accessed by Ohio children in that age group, a coverage standard that will require operators to evaluate their user bases, marketing, and product design when assessing whether the statute reaches them.
Operators should move quickly to prepare for enforcement. Practical steps include implementing or refining age assurance mechanisms, designing parental consent workflows that capture and document authorization, updating terms of service and privacy disclosures, and coordinating with product, engineering, and trust and safety teams on rollout timelines. Companies should also monitor for potential further appellate proceedings, including any petition for rehearing en banc or subsequent Supreme Court review, as well as parallel litigation involving comparable statutes in other states.
This alert is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Clients navigating potential exposure under the Act or considering compliance strategies should seek tailored guidance based on their specific facts and circumstances.