U.S. court rules Ohio can restrict children’s use of social media

June 18 (Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court on Thursday cleared the way for Ohio to implement a law that requires social media companies, including Meta Platforms’ (META.O), opens new tab Instagram, to obtain parental ​consent before allowing children under 16 to use their platforms.

A 2-1 panel of ‌the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals a lower-court ruling that had put the law on hold at the request of the tech industry trade group NetChoice. The panel found the law did not violate free ​speech protections under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Spokespeople for NetChoice and Ohio’s ​attorney general, David Yost, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The ⁠ruling comes as governments around the world, including in Australia, move to restrict children’s access ​to social media, reflecting growing concern among lawmakers about the platforms’ effect on young people’s health ​and safety.

The Ohio case is one of an array of legal challenges that NetChoice has been pursuing to prevent states from implementing laws the authorities say are needed to protect children from the mental health dangers posed ​by social media.

The Ohio law, known as the Social Media Parental Notification Act, was passed ​by the state’s legislature in 2023 and took effect in January 2024, only to be quickly blocked from being ‌enforced ⁠by U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley.

The law requires operators of websites that can be reasonably anticipated to be accessed by children under 16 to verify their age. It provides an 11-factor list to determine whether a website falls within that definition, along with certain exceptions.

NetChoice, whose members include ​TikTok, Alphabet’s (GOOGL.O), opens new tab YouTube, and ​Facebook and Instagram ⁠owner Meta, had argued the law was unconstitutionally vague and improperly restricted children’s access to content protected by the First Amendment.

But U.S. Circuit Judge ​Eric Clay, writing the lead opinion, said that while the law ​does place some ⁠burden on protected speech and limits how social media companies prefer to distribute their content, it was narrowly written to address Ohio’s compelling interest in protecting children.

“At bottom, the Act imposes a ⁠parental consent ​requirement,” he wrote. “That requirement constitutes a marginal burden that ​precisely targets the multi-faceted problem that Ohio has identified: Children’s unsupervised assent to terms and conditions for use of platforms ​that take advantage of and harm them.”