Law limiting kids' social media use unconstitutional

COLUMBUS — A federal judge permanently struck down an Ohio law on Thursday that would have required children and teens under 16 to get parental consent to use social media apps. U.S. District Court Judge Algenon Marbley's decision came in a lawsuit filed by NetChoice, a trade group representing TikTok, Snapchat, Meta and other major tech companies. The organization's complaint argued that the law unconstitutionally impedes free speech and is overly broad and vague. The state contends the law is needed to protect children from the harms of social media. Marbley said that the state's effort, while laudable, went too far. "This court finds, however, that the Act as drafted fails to pass constitutional muster and is constitutionally infirm," he wrote, adding that even the government's "most noble entreaties to protect its citizenry" must abide by the U.S. Constitution. Bethany McCorkle, a spokesperson for Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, said, "We're reviewing the decision and will determine the next steps." The law was originally set to take effect Jan. 15, 2024, but Marbley placed an immediate hold on enforcing it that he later extended. It is similar to ones enacted in other states, including California, Arkansas and Utah, where NetChoice lawsuits have also succeeded in blocking such laws, either permanently or temporarily. The law seeks to require companies to get parental permission for social media and gaming apps and to provide their privacy guidelines so families know what content would be censored or moderated on their child's profile. The Social Media Parental Notification Act was part of an $86.1 billion state budget bill that Republican Gov. Mike DeWine signed into law in July 2023. The administration pushed the measure as a way to protect children's mental health, with then-Republican Lt. Gov. Jon Husted saying that social media was "intentionally addictive" and harmful to kids. Marbley said the law "resides at the intersection of two unquestionable rights: the rights of children to 'a significant measure of' freedom of speech and expression under the First Amendment, and the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children free from unnecessary governmental intrusion." But his opinion cited court precedent that such laws don't enforce parental authority over their children's speech, they impose governmental authority over children subject to parental veto. NetChoice praised Thursday's ruling. "The decision confirms that the First Amendment protects both websites' right to disseminate content and Americans' right to engage with protected speech online, and policymakers must respect constitutional rights when legislating," Chris Marchese, NetChoice's director of litigation, said in a statement.