A federal judge in Ohio on Wednesday permanently blocked a state law requiring parental permission for minors under 16 to have a social media account.
It’s the second such ruling in recent weeks. A similar law in Arkansas was permanently enjoined last month. Both laws were previously on hold temporarily.
The decisions are wins for NetChoice, a tech trade group that sued to overturn the laws on constitutional grounds.
Similar laws have been passed in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and Utah, according to NetChoice.
“NetChoice’s victory in Ohio joins federal courts nationwide in finding age verification and barriers to lawful information unconstitutional,” Chris Marchese, NetChoice’s director of litigation, said in a statement announcing the court ruling.
NetChoice’s members include Google, Meta, Snap and X.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley granted NetChoice’s motion for summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction based on a finding that the law “fails to pass constitutional muster and is constitutionally infirm.”
While praising the state for trying to protect children, Marbley said the 2023 law ran afoul of the First Amendment and compared it to a 2005 California law that sought to ban the sale of violent video games to youth. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down that law in 2011 on the grounds that states do not have “a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.”
Read more: Ohio proposal would require parental permission for social media
Marbley acknowledged the potential harm social media poses to minors, including higher rates of depression and anxiety, along with the techniques platforms use to “maximize engagement.” He also cited a Harvard study that found six of the top social media platforms earned a combined $11 billion advertising to youth in 2022.
But Marbley concluded that the requirement that social media sites verify user ages and obtain a parent’s permission crossed a constitutional line by impeding “minors’ ability to engage in and access speech.”
“The Court, although sympathetic to what the Ohio legislature sought to do, finds that the evidence does not establish the required nexus between the legislative concerns about the well-being of minors and the restrictions on speech,” Marbley wrote.
Gov. Mike DeWine (R) released a statement after the ruling defending the law and urging an appeal.
“We know how harmful social media is to children without parental involvement,” DeWine said. “This law is a commonsense solution that allows social media usage by a child under the permission of a parent, just like going on a school field trip or participating in youth sports. This ruling should be appealed.”
The office of Attorney General Dave Yost (R), which defended the law in court, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.
The recent court rulings highlight the challenge state lawmakers face when crafting youth online safety legislation. Despite the legal setbacks, lawmakers show no sign of letting up on the issue.
Read more: States struggle to regulate social media amid legal threats, lobbying
After Arkansas’s law was blocked, Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) and lawmakers introduced new legislation that addressed the issues raised by the court case.
One bill aimed to clarify the definition of social media, reduced the age for parental verification from under 18 to under 16, and introduced a prohibition on addictive features. A second bill would give parents the right to directly sue social media companies for alleged harms to their children and hold companies accountable for contributing to a minor’s suicide or attempted suicide.
The legislature passed both this week.
“We’ve all seen how Big Tech companies take advantage of our most vulnerable kids. It’s time for states to stand up and fight back,” Arkansas Rep. Jon Eubanks (R) said in a statement announcing the legislation earlier this month.