An Ohio law regulating kids’ accounts on social media likely violates the First Amendment in “breathtakingly blunt” ways and cannot take effect next week as scheduled, a federal judge has ruled.
The state law set to take effect Jan. 15 would have required social media platforms to obtain parental consent before creating accounts for children under age 16.
The decision to pause the law while litigation continues marks another early-stage victory for the tech industry against a wave of state social media laws seeking to govern how tech companies engage with young users.
Those laws have emerged as a response to nationwide concerns about the possible link between social media use and harms to mental health, particularly for minors.
In Tuesday’s emergency order temporarily blocking the law, Algenon Marbley, chief judge at the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, sided with tech industry arguments about Ohio’s Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act.
Marbley expressed doubts about Ohio’s ability to prove in court that the law can survive First Amendment scrutiny, writing that the legislation’s approach “is an untargeted one, as parents must only give one-time approval for the creation of an account,” and doesn’t otherwise require platforms to “protect against any of the specific dangers that social media might pose.”
Challenging the law is a tech industry group, NetChoice, whose members include Instagram-parent Meta, Google, TikTok and Snapchat-parent Snap, among others.
NetChoice had argued that Ohio’s law infringes on the First Amendment rights of social media companies and underage Ohioans alike.
“NetChoice is glad the Court decided to halt this unconstitutional law while our case for a preliminary injunction is heard,” said Chris Marchese, director of the NetChoice litigation center. “We look forward to making our case to the Court and ensuring that Ohioans’ First Amendment rights, privacy, and security online are protected.”
NetChoice has challenged social media laws in Arkansas and California, obtaining court orders last year pausing the legislation from taking effect in those states. It has also sued to block similar legislation in Utah that could take effect by March.
Read the full article here
