A US circuit court overturned an injunction against Ohio, allowing the state to implement a law forcing platforms to seek parental consent if a user is under 16
ReutersNate Raymond
Context & Ripple Effects
Ohio’s parental-consent requirement had been stopped repeatedly in federal court, first temporarily and then through a permanent injunction. The circuit-court reversal changes that state-level legal trajectory by restoring the law’s enforceability.
The dispute sits alongside similar state efforts in Arkansas and Mississippi, which also encountered federal court challenges. Related coverage also points to a separate Texas age-verification requirement aimed at app stores and developers, broadening the policy focus beyond social-media services alone.
First-order effects
Platforms covered by Ohio’s law can now be required to determine whether users are under 16 and obtain parental consent before allowing those younger users to proceed.
Companies operating in Ohio must shift from treating the requirement as enjoined litigation risk to preparing compliance, including age and parental-consent flows.
Second-order effects
A live Ohio requirement increases pressure on platforms to build compliance systems that can be adapted to multiple state rules rather than handling each lawsuit as an isolated matter.
The decision strengthens the practical case for age-assurance and consent tooling, while raising the operational stakes for services that have argued such mandates burden access or speech.
Third-order effects
If appellate courts continue to permit these laws, youth online-safety policy may increasingly be set through a patchwork of state-specific verification and consent mandates rather than a single platform standard.
The expanding scope—from social networks in Ohio, Arkansas, and Mississippi to app stores and developers in Texas—suggests regulatory obligations could spread across the consumer-internet distribution chain, though further court rulings will determine how durable that shift is.
The trend: US states are testing increasingly broad age-verification and parental-consent rules for minors’ digital access, with appellate outcomes determining whether those rules become operational compliance mandates.
On vagueness, Judge Batchelder's analysis is more persuasive than Judge Clay. For a vagueness challenge to succeed requires meeting a high bar. Laws don't need to be perfect. This one is certainly good enough. [image]
Ohio won on hardmode. First, Judge Clay explains that the law burdens protected speech under the First Amendment. Next, he explains that the law must satisfy strict scrutiny. That is a very high bar. A bar that Ohio meets! [image]
Judge Batchelder notes that this lawsuit failed to “clairvoyantly” meet the high standard the Supreme Court imposed in Moody v. NetChoice—it was filed before that Supreme Court decision issued. She'd reject a facial challenge as the “cost” of its choice of how to litigate. [image…
Next is vagueness. More and more, courts that have policy disagreements with State laws appear to use vagueness as a last redoubt to justify anti-enforcement injunctions. That fails here, too. [image]
Can Ohio protect kids by enacting reasonable restrictions on social media for minors' use? Yes, explains the Sixth Circuit. In a divided opinion, the facial injunction entered in the district court is vacated. Big win for @DaveYostOH and Ohio parents and kids (and SG Sridharan!) …
Judge Batchelder reverses but on different reasons. She's not sure that strict scrutiny applies. She doesn't need to reach it because there is not a basis for a facial challenge. She also departs from her colleagues on their third-party standing claims as to minors. [image]
Judge Ritz dissents. He'd affirm the injunction but modify it to only apply to NetChoice's members. Read all three fascinating opinions, here: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/ ... [image]
“A U.S. appeals court on Thursday cleared the way for Ohio to implement a law that requires social media companies, including Meta Platforms', Instagram, to obtain parental consent before allowing children under 16 to use their platforms.” www.reuters.com/world/us/us- ...