Background
Ohio enacted the Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act to address concerns regarding social media’s impact on youth mental health and safety. The Act requires operators of sites targeting children under sixteen to obtain verifiable parental consent before allowing minors to access the platform. NetChoice, a trade association of online businesses, sued the Ohio Attorney General, arguing the law violated the First Amendment and was unconstitutionally vague. The district court granted summary judgment for NetChoice, enjoining the Act entirely.
The court’s reasoning
The Sixth Circuit panel, led by Judge Clay, focused primarily on the issue of prudential standing. The court determined that NetChoice could not assert the rights of minor users because its interests were not aligned with those of the children. The association’s members profit from user engagement, creating a conflict where the association advocates for unfettered access while the Act aims to protect minors from potential harm. The court rejected the argument that First Amendment overbreadth challenges automatically permit third-party standing in this context, noting that the unique conflict of interest here distinguished the case from typical vendor-customer relationships.
The dissent
What it means going forward
The reversal allows the Ohio law to remain in effect pending further proceedings, shifting the burden to the state to enforce the parental consent requirements against social media operators.