A federal judge has ruled that Ohio’s attempt to restrict teen access to social media is unconstitutional, dealing a win to Big Tech and leaving parents concerned about protections for children online.
Key Facts: Federal Judge Rules for Social Media Against State Law
- Judge Algenon L. Marbley permanently blocked Ohio’s Social Media Parental Notification Act on April 16, 2025.
- The law required parental consent for users under 16 and age verification for all users.
- NetChoice, a tech industry group, sued Ohio, arguing the law violated the First and 14th Amendments.
- The court ruled the law was a content-based restriction that failed strict scrutiny.
- Ohio joins other states like Arkansas and California that lost similar court battles to NetChoice.
The Rest of the Story: NetChoice Victory in Ohio Court Halts Teen Online Safeguard
Ohio’s law sought to require social media platforms to verify that users are at least 16 years old, with younger users needing parental permission.
State leaders believed the policy would protect children from harmful online interactions.
However, NetChoice sued in January 2024, claiming the law violated constitutional rights.
On April 16, Judge Algenon L. Marbley ruled that the law interfered with free speech rights, citing the First Amendment.
He stated that even laws aimed at protecting minors must meet the highest constitutional standards.
Because the law restricted the flow of content to minors, it qualified as a content-based restriction and failed the legal test known as “strict scrutiny.”
This ruling stops Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost from enforcing the law.
Governor Mike DeWine expressed disappointment and urged Congress to take action to protect children online.
🚨🚨🏛️ NetChoice Wins ANOTHER Permanent Block of Age Verification Law, Protecting Online Speech and Safety in Ohio
CONTACT: PRESS@NETCHOICE.ORG
COLUMBUS, Ohio—Today, a U.S. District Court in NetChoice v. Yost permanently struck down Ohio’s age verification law, which… pic.twitter.com/xMl8vyz3Hh
— NetChoice (@NetChoice) April 16, 2025
Commentary: Why This Ruling Leaves Parents and Children Vulnerable
Parents across the country know what social media is doing to their kids.
Depression, anxiety, and even suicide are real consequences of unchecked online exposure.
Ohio’s law was a modest attempt to give parents a say before a 13-year-old starts scrolling endlessly on apps built to be addictive.
Now, a federal judge says that’s not allowed.
Ohio isn’t alone.
Arkansas passed a similar law, and NetChoice crushed that too.
These laws aren’t banning speech; they’re trying to delay access until kids are old enough to handle the pressure and manipulation that often comes with these platforms.
That’s common sense.
But Big Tech doesn’t want restrictions.
They claim free speech, but what they really mean is free access to data.
The Ohio law would’ve required companies to confirm age and get parental permission.
That’s it.
But NetChoice argued that verifying age and getting consent somehow violated the Constitution.
Judge Marbley said the law failed strict scrutiny.
But isn’t there a greater interest at stake here—protecting children from harm?
If the First Amendment now blocks even the most basic safety measures for minors, something’s out of balance.
Lawmakers are trying to act.
Parents are begging for help.
But the courts keep siding with Silicon Valley.
And while judges debate constitutional nuance, kids scroll on—unsupervised, unprotected, and increasingly unhappy.
The Bottom Line: Federal Judge Rules for Social Media Against State Law
The court’s decision in NetChoice v. Yost is another blow to state efforts aimed at shielding minors from the dangers of social media.
Ohio’s law was ruled unconstitutional despite its goal to protect children.
With Big Tech winning in courtrooms across the country, parents and lawmakers are left with fewer tools to rein in platforms that profit from teen engagement.
Read Next
– New Study Shows Common Medical Test Could Be Causing Up To 5% of All Cancer Diagnoses Each Year
– Eco-Alarmists Have a New Target, You’re Not Going to Believe This One