Sixth Circuit Revives Ohio's Parental-Consent Social Media Law (2026)

Sixth Circuit Revives Ohio's Parental-Consent Social Media Law and Denies NetChoice Standing to Speak for Minors

A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on June 18, 2026 reversed a lower-court ruling that had blocked Ohio's parental-consent social media law and ordered judgment for the state. The panel let the law take effect and held that NetChoice lacks standing to assert minors' First Amendment rights.

Information last verified on June 23, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Status: Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on June 18, 2026 (No. 25-3371). The court reversed the district court's summary judgment and permanent injunction and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Ohio; NetChoice may still seek further review.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses Ohio's Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act and the Sixth Circuit's June 18, 2026 decision in NetChoice v. Yost. It covers Ohio law and binding Sixth Circuit authority. Courts in other circuits have reached differing results on similar age-verification and parental-consent laws. This is general legal information, not legal advice.

What Happened

On June 18, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided NetChoice, LLC v. Yost, No. 25-3371. A divided panel reversed the district court and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost. The result lifts the block that had kept Ohio's Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act from taking effect.

The procedural history runs back to early 2024. NetChoice, a technology trade association whose members include large social media platforms, sued in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. District Judge Algenon L. Marbley granted a temporary restraining order in January 2024 and a preliminary injunction in February 2024. On April 16, 2025, the district court granted summary judgment to NetChoice and entered a permanent injunction, holding the Act unconstitutional because it was not narrowly tailored to the state's interest in protecting minors. Ohio appealed, the Sixth Circuit heard oral argument in early 2026, and the June 18, 2026 decision reversed that judgment.

The Ohio Act requires covered social media operators to obtain verifiable parental consent before contracting with a user under the age of 16 to create an account, and to provide parents with information about the platform's content-moderation features. Enforcement authority sits with the Ohio Attorney General, who investigates violations the way the office handles other consumer-protection matters.

The panel's most consequential ruling addressed standing. The lead opinion held that NetChoice could not prudentially assert the First Amendment rights of minors. The court reasoned that the platforms' profit motive is in direct tension with minors' welfare, which is the very conflict that prudential third-party standing doctrine exists to police. Without standing to litigate minors' speech rights, NetChoice was left to its own facial challenge, which the court found it failed to carry.

On the merits the court did not avoid the First Amendment. It treated the Act as content-based, applied strict scrutiny, and concluded the law survives that demanding standard. The court pointed to the record of documented harms associated with minors' social media use that the state offered in support of the law. The panel also rejected NetChoice's argument that the Act's coverage definitions and exemptions are unconstitutionally vague.

The panel split three ways on reasoning. Judge Eric Clay announced the judgment of the court. Judge Alice Batchelder concurred in the judgment, resting primarily on the view that NetChoice failed to make the showing required for facial invalidation under Moody v. NetChoice, LLC. Judge Kevin Ritz dissented. He would have found that NetChoice had standing, agreed that strict scrutiny applied, and concluded that the Act could not survive it; he would have affirmed the injunction while narrowing it to NetChoice's members.

What the Law Actually Says

Ohio's Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act is codified at Ohio Revised Code Section 1349.09. It was enacted as part of House Bill 33 and was originally set to apply beginning in early 2024 before the courts intervened. The statute defines an "operator" broadly to reach businesses that run online services allowing users to interact socially, build profiles, list social connections, and create or post content that others can view.

The core duty is consent. Before a covered operator contracts with a child under 16 to register an account, it must obtain verifiable parental or guardian consent. "Verifiable" parental consent means the operator must take reasonable steps, given available technology, to confirm that the person providing consent is actually the child's parent or legal guardian rather than the child or a stranger. The operator must also give the consenting parent a list of the moderation features the platform offers. The Attorney General investigates noncompliance as a consumer-protection matter and may seek civil penalties.

The constitutional questions in the case turn on two distinct doctrines. The first is third-party standing, sometimes called prudential standing. As a general rule, a litigant must assert its own legal rights, not the rights of others who are not before the court. Courts make a limited exception when a party has a close relationship to the absent rights-holder and the rights-holder faces some obstacle to suing on their own. The Sixth Circuit's lead opinion held that NetChoice did not fit that exception here, because the economic interests of platforms can diverge from what minors would choose for themselves.

The second doctrine is the First Amendment strict-scrutiny framework. When a law is content-based, meaning it draws distinctions based on the topic or message of speech, courts apply strict scrutiny: the government must show the law serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored, using the least restrictive means available. Strict scrutiny is hard to satisfy, which is why the court's conclusion that this content-based law survives it is notable. The lead opinion grounded that conclusion in the state's evidence of harm and the structure of the law as a parental-consent contracting rule rather than an outright ban on minors' access.

The decision lands in the middle of a national wave of state online-safety legislation. States have taken several different paths. Some require websites to verify age directly, often through an uploaded government ID. Others push the age check down to the device or app store. Ohio's approach is a parental-consent contracting rule rather than an age-gate on content. These models are being litigated on different timelines and with different results, which is part of why the Ohio ruling matters beyond its borders. Compare the device-signal model in the Illinois social media age-assurance law and the Colorado device-level age-check law, and the app-store identity model in the Texas app store age-verification law.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

The standing holding is the part of this decision most likely to echo. NetChoice has built much of its litigation strategy on facial First Amendment challenges, often arguing on behalf of the speech interests of the users on its members' platforms. A holding that a trade group cannot assert minors' rights, because the platforms' profit motive conflicts with those minors' welfare, narrows that strategy in the Sixth Circuit. If other courts adopt similar reasoning, plaintiffs may need to restructure how they bring these challenges or recruit different parties.

The merits ruling is equally striking on its own terms. Many observers expected that classifying a social media law as content-based would be close to fatal, because strict scrutiny so rarely upholds content-based regulation. Here the court applied strict scrutiny and still sustained the law, leaning on the state's evidentiary record and the parental-consent structure. That is a different result from what NetChoice has obtained in several other recent matters, where courts blocked state online-safety laws. This ruling cuts against that run of wins and adds to the patchwork of conflicting outcomes that lower courts have produced since the Supreme Court's recent decisions in this area.

We are not predicting whether NetChoice will seek rehearing en banc or review in the Supreme Court, or how any such request would be resolved. What we can say is that the law now stands in the Sixth Circuit, that the panel itself split three ways on the reasoning, and that the disagreement among courts on these laws is getting harder to ignore. Readers in Ohio should treat the law as in force unless a further court order changes that.

How This Affects You

For parents in Ohio, the practical effect is that covered platforms are expected to seek verifiable consent before a child under 16 can create a new account, and to share information about the moderation tools available. Exactly how each platform implements consent will vary, and the rollout may take time as operators build or adjust their processes.

For platforms and operators, the decision means the compliance duties under Ohio Rev. Code 1349.09 are live in the Sixth Circuit unless a later order says otherwise. Operators that paused Ohio-specific changes while the law was enjoined may need to revisit their plans. The enforcement risk runs through the Ohio Attorney General's office.

For teens in Ohio, a new account on a covered service may now require a parent or guardian to consent first. Existing accounts and the precise scope of covered services will depend on how operators read the statute and any further guidance.

If you live in another state, this ruling does not directly govern your platform or your access. Similar parental-consent and age-verification laws in other states are being challenged on their own facts, and courts have not reached uniform results. The device-signal laws in Illinois and Colorado and the app-store model in Texas are structured differently and are at different stages of litigation. None of this is individualized legal advice. If a specific decision turns on how the Ohio law applies to you or your business, consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

This article provides general legal information, not legal advice, and addresses only Ohio's Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act and the Sixth Circuit's June 18, 2026 decision in NetChoice v. Yost. It does not state the law of other states or other circuits. Information was verified on June 23, 2026 and the case may change on further review. For advice about a specific situation, consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

Sources

• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, NetChoice, LLC v. Yost, No. 25-3371 (6th Cir. June 18, 2026), opinion (recommended for publication): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68139317/netchoice-llc-v-yost/
• Ohio Revised Code Section 1349.09, Parental Notification by Social Media Operators (codes.ohio.gov, official): https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-1349.09
• U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, NetChoice, LLC v. Yost, No. 2:24-cv-00047, summary judgment and permanent injunction (Apr. 16, 2025), via govinfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ohsd-2_24-cv-00047/USCOURTS-ohsd-2_24-cv-00047-0
• Courthouse News Service, "Sixth Circuit revives Ohio's parental consent law for kids' social media" (Tier 3 corroboration): https://courthousenews.com/sixth-circuit-revives-ohios-parental-consent-law-for-kids-social-media/
• Reason, "6th Circuit backs ban on Ohio minors using social media without parental permission" (Tier 3 corroboration): https://reason.com/2026/06/22/6th-circuit-backs-ban-on-ohio-minors-using-social-media-without-parental-permission/

Related articles

• Illinois social media age-assurance law
• Texas app store age-verification law
• Iowa age-verification law
• Colorado device-level age-check law

---

Last updated: 2026-06-23. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-06-23.