NetChoice v. Yost: How Ohio's Social Media Parental Consent Law Was Enjoined, Then Upheld on Appeal

What ORC 1349.09 Required

The codified section is titled "Parental notification by social media operators" and carries a note that it applies beginning January 15, 2024 under Section 803.380 of House Bill 33, the 135th General Assembly's budget bill. Its listed effective date is October 3, 2023, and House Bill 33 is the only legislation shown for it.

An "operator" is any business that runs an online site, service or product with Ohio users that lets them do all four of the following: interact socially, build a public or semipublic profile, populate a list of social connections, and post content viewable by others. A "child" is an unemancipated consumer under 16. Division (B) applies to an operator whose service "targets children, or is reasonably anticipated to be accessed by children," and division (C) lists eleven factors the Attorney General or a court "may consider" in deciding that question, from subject matter and design elements to empirical evidence of audience composition.

A covered operator must obtain verifiable consent from a parent or guardian "for any contract with a child, including terms of service," by one of five listed methods: a signed form, a payment card transaction, a staffed toll-free call, a videoconference, or a check of government identification followed by prompt deletion. It must also show the parent a list of content moderation and censoring features and a link to review them later, and confirm the consent in writing. Without consent, division (E) requires the operator to deny the child access. A parent may withdraw consent, and the operator then has 30 days to end the child's use.

Enforcement sits with the Attorney General alone. Division (G) disclaims a private right of action, and division (H) authorizes a civil action for injunctions and penalties. A court that finds a contract made without parental consent "shall impose" penalties of up to $1,000 a day for the first 60 days, up to $5,000 more a day for days 61 through 90, and up to $10,000 more a day after that. An operator in "substantial compliance" gets written notice and 90 days to cure. The section excludes services whose predominant function is cloud storage, broadband access or search, and services where user interaction is limited to product reviews or comments incidental to content from "an established and widely recognized media outlet."

The Claims NetChoice Brought

NetChoice, a trade association whose members the courts identified as including Google, Meta, X, Nextdoor and Pinterest, sued Attorney General Dave Yost in his official capacity on January 5, 2024, ten days before the law was to apply, as No. 2:24-cv-00047 in the Southern District of Ohio. According to the February 2024 opinion, NetChoice argued three things: that the Act was too vague to tell its members whether and how to comply; that it imposed speaker- and content-based restrictions on protected speech; and that it was an overinclusive and underinclusive ban on minors' access to speech. NetChoice asserted both its members' rights and those of their minor users.

The Attorney General's position, as the courts recorded it, was that the Act regulates contracting with minors rather than speech, so that rational basis review applies, or at most intermediate scrutiny for an incidental burden on speech. He also argued that NetChoice could not stand in for Ohio children because their interests conflict with its members' interests.

The Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley held a conference on January 8, 2024 and granted a temporary restraining order the same day, barring enforcement against NetChoice and its members. After a hearing on February 7, the February 12, 2024 opinion and order granted a preliminary injunction.

The court did not treat the phrases "targets children" and "reasonably anticipated to be accessed by children" as content-based. It did find the Act's distinctions based on platform functionality content based, called the exceptions for product reviews and widely recognized media outlets "easy to categorize as content based," and applied strict scrutiny. It accepted that protecting minors' wellbeing may be a compelling interest, but called a parental-consent gate on all content of covered sites "a breathtakingly blunt instrument," underinclusive because a child could still contract with the New York Times, and found the law "either underinclusive or overinclusive, or both" for every interest offered. It also found the coverage factors and the media-outlet exception "troublingly vague."

The Final Ruling

The parties agreed to forgo discovery and proceed on the preliminary injunction record. The April 16, 2025 opinion and order addressed the intervening Supreme Court decision in Moody v. NetChoice, which tightened the showing required for facial First Amendment challenges. Judge Marbley concluded that "in every application to a covered website, the Act raises the same First Amendment issues," that NetChoice had standing to assert its members' rights and those of Ohio minors, and that the court was "unaware of a 'contract exception' to the First Amendment."

On the merits, the court again applied strict scrutiny, again found the Act not narrowly tailored and again found its coverage language vague. It denied the Attorney General's motion for summary judgment, granted NetChoice's, and enjoined the Attorney General and his officers from enforcing section 1349.09. The order states that it "shall constitute a final judgment" and directed the clerk to close the case administratively.

The Appeal

The Attorney General appealed as Sixth Circuit No. 25-3371. An August 2025 release from his office describes the opening brief as arguing that NetChoice lacks third-party standing and that the consent provision "targets conduct, not speech." The case was argued on February 4, 2026.

The panel's June 18, 2026 decision, recommended for publication as 26a0177p.06, reversed and remanded "with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Yost." No single rationale drew two votes on every issue:

• Judge Clay, announcing the judgment, held that NetChoice lacks third-party standing for its members' minor users, that the Act is content-based and subject to strict scrutiny, and that it survives because parental consent is "a marginal burden" aimed at children's unsupervised assent to platform terms; he also rejected the vagueness claim for operators that clearly target children
• Judge Batchelder concurred in the judgment, agreed on third-party standing, and would have rejected the facial First Amendment claim under Moody for want of a record covering the Act's full scope, without reaching the merits; she rejected the vagueness claim on different reasoning
• Judge Ritz dissented: he would have found third-party standing, agreed the Act is content-based, held that it fails strict scrutiny, and would have affirmed with an injunction limited to NetChoice's members

Because the majority reversed, it did not reach the Attorney General's argument that the district court's injunction was too broad. A statement from Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson called the ruling "a win for Ohio families."

The next steps are recorded at the Supreme Court. In its application for more time, NetChoice states that the Sixth Circuit denied a timely petition for rehearing en banc on August 5, 2026, a denial reproduced in the decisions-below appendix, which notes that no judge requested a vote and that Judge Ritz would have granted rehearing. The Supreme Court docket, No. 26A557, shows the application filed October 19, 2026 and granted by Justice Kavanaugh on October 22, extending the deadline for a certiorari petition to December 3, 2026. As of November 2, 2026 the docket shows no petition.

Whether the Sixth Circuit's mandate has issued, or been stayed pending that petition, is not shown in any document fetched for this post, so this post does not state whether the district court's injunction has been lifted. No action by the Attorney General to enforce section 1349.09 against any operator appears in the court records or releases reviewed.

Frequently Asked Questions