Judges Greenlight Teen TikTok Lockdown

Ohio’s fight over teen social media access has turned into a direct test of who gets to set the rules online: parents, judges, or the state.

Quick Take

The Sixth Circuit restored Ohio’s law requiring parental consent for users under 16.^[5]
The court said the law places only a limited burden on speech and protects children’s safety.^[5]
NetChoice says the law still violates the First Amendment and will keep fighting.^[4]^[5]
The ruling reverses a 2025 district court order that had blocked the law.^[3]

What the Court Decided

A divided United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that Ohio may enforce its Social Media Parental Notification Act. The 2-1 decision restores the state’s ban on social media use by minors under 16 unless a parent gives permission.^[5] Judge Eric Clay wrote that the law creates only a “marginal burden” and targets what the state sees as a real problem: children accepting platform terms without adult oversight.^[5]

The ruling gives Ohio officials a major win after a federal district judge had already struck the law down as unconstitutional.^[3] That earlier decision called the statute vague and said it burdened minors’ ability to access speech. The new appeals court ruling moves the case in the opposite direction for now, but the fight is far from over. NetChoice, the tech group leading the challenge, says the law still violates the First Amendment and harms online rights.^[4]^[5]

Why Ohio Pushed the Law

Ohio lawmakers passed the measure in 2023, and Governor Mike DeWine signed it into law the same year.^[1]^[12] The law requires social media companies and some gaming sites to verify age and get parental consent before minors under 16 can create or keep accounts.^[12]^[20] State officials say the law answers a real concern about children using platforms that can expose them to harm, pressure, and unsafe content.^[4]^[5]

The appellate court accepted that reasoning. In the lead opinion, Judge Clay said the statute does not block protected speech in a serious way and is aimed at a state interest the court viewed as legitimate.^[5] Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson called the ruling a win for families and said parents, not social media companies, should have the final say in what children see online.^[3]^[4]

The Civil Liberties Fight Is Not Over

NetChoice and its allies argue that the law goes too far because it ties access to speech to parental approval and age checks.^[10]^[11]^[13] They also say the measure is vague and could force platforms to collect sensitive data from users of all ages.^[11]^[13] Those objections have helped other courts block similar laws in the past, including Ohio’s own district court in 2025.^[3]^[13]

Kids 16 and under may soon be restricted from accessing social media after a federal appeals court upheld an Ohio law requiring parental consent to make an account.
by Morgan Trauhttps://t.co/WfKpacIHFF

— Honesty For Ohio Education (@Honesty4OhioEd) June 23, 2026

The bigger issue is national. More states have tried to regulate minors’ social media use, but many of those laws have run into constitutional trouble.^[18]^[19] That leaves lawmakers under pressure from parents worried about online harm and from civil libertarians worried about government overreach. Ohio’s ruling shows how sharply those two concerns now collide, especially when judges treat child safety and free speech as competing duties instead of shared goals.