A US court has determined that Ohio is allowed to limit children's access to social media.

      Ohio is permitted to mandate that social media companies obtain parental consent before allowing children under 16 to use their platforms, a ruling was made by a US appeals court on Thursday, reinstating a law that the tech industry had previously managed to halt. The Cincinnati-based 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s decision that had blocked the law, marking a victory for the state in an ongoing national debate.

      The panel's decision was split two to one, with the majority concluding that the law does not infringe on the free-speech rights protected by the First Amendment—an argument that the tech industry has used to contest child-access regulations in various states. By dismissing this argument, the court allowed Ohio to implement a statute that had been paused following an injunction obtained by the trade group NetChoice.

      The law specifically requires that companies obtain parental consent and provide disclosure. It mandates that companies receive permission from a parent before allowing a child under 16 to access social media or gaming applications and that they must share their content guidelines for families to understand what content may be moderated or censored on a child's profile.

      Platforms affected include Meta’s Instagram, a service at the heart of the larger discussion regarding minors' social media usage. NetChoice, which represents platforms such as Meta, emphasized that the battle is far from over. The organization asserted that the ruling jeopardizes the online privacy and constitutional rights of Ohio residents, expressing confidence that this unconstitutional law will ultimately be permanently overturned.

      This statement indicates an intention to continue legal challenges, whether through requests for a full rehearing by the appeals court or a potential appeal to the Supreme Court. The ruling contributes to a nationwide mix of related laws and challenges. States such as California, Georgia, and Florida have enacted similar regulations, and NetChoice has contested most based on First Amendment arguments.

      Ongoing disputes, such as Florida's case against TikTok and Mississippi's age-verification law, which reached the Supreme Court, showcase a lack of unified judicial response. This inconsistency poses practical challenges for platforms. Age verification at scale has often been contentious, risking either invasive identity checks or systems that can be bypassed by determined teenagers.

      Navigating different regulations in each state—some requiring parental consent and others mandating age verification—complicates compliance and is a key reason why the industry has sought to prevent these laws from being enacted. Regulatory pressure extends beyond the US; Australia is working to restrict access for under-16s on major platforms, alleging non-compliance from Meta, TikTok, and YouTube, while the UK is broadening its own under-16 regulations to encompass gaming and AI chatbots. Ohio's renewed law fits into a global trend of tightening controls over children's access to social media.

      The central legal question concerns whether access to social media constitutes protected speech. NetChoice contends that requiring parental consent for minors' access encumbers the speech protected by the First Amendment, both for platforms and users; states argue that they are regulating commercial behavior and safeguarding children rather than censoring expression.

      Courts have been split on this interpretation, which allows a two-to-one panel in Cincinnati to arrive at one conclusion, while judges in other jurisdictions may reach different ones. This division is likely to propel the issue up the judicial hierarchy. As appeals courts and the Supreme Court consider overlapping but distinct state laws, the standards governing minors' access to social media are being developed piecemeal, case by case, rather than being uniformly established.

      At present, the immediate consequence is that Ohio's parental-consent requirement can be enforced, pending any further appeals. The broader question of whether similar laws will withstand constitutional scrutiny remains unresolved, and Thursday’s two-to-one ruling is probably not the final determination.