Ohio AG: Social Media Age Verification Act Complies With First Amendment
NetChoice lacks standing to challenge the Ohio Social Media Parental Notification Act, nor does the law violate the First Amendment, said Attorney General Dave Yost (R) in a brief filed Tuesday. He asked the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse an April decision by the U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio to enjoin the law (see 2504180031).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Privacy Daily provides accurate coverage of newsworthy developments in data protection legislation, regulation, litigation, and enforcement for privacy professionals responsible for ensuring effective organizational data privacy compliance.
The Ohio law requires websites targeting children younger than 18 to obtain parental consent before engaging in contracts with minors. NetChoice argued that the law impedes safety and security online and violates the First Amendment.
"In taking aggressive First Amendment positions, NetChoice shows little regard for children’s health and well-being," and the tech trade association's "maximalist First Amendment stance necessarily sacrifices the contract protections Ohio’s statute affords children," Yost said. Additionally, NetChoice "did not create a sufficient record for facial review."
Yost also argued that the constitutional claims lack merit, as the "parental-consent provision regulates conduct, not speech" and is an application of the states' longstanding history to "regulate children’s ability to contract without constitutional concern." Even if looked at as targeted speech, the parental-consent provision is content-neutral and "survives any appropriate constitutional scrutiny." The statute overall isn't unconstitutionally vague, the AG added.
During the district court's oral argument in NetChoice v. Yost in March, the judge peppered the state with questions about content neutrality (see 2503130036). Judge Algenon Marbley permanently enjoined the Act on April 16, prompting Yost to appeal case 2:24-cv-00047 on May 12 to the 6th Circuit, where it became case 25-3371.