Bipartisan Coalition of States Files Amicus Brief Supporting Ohio Social Media Act
An Ohio law requiring websites targeting children younger than 18 to obtain parental consent before engaging in contracts with minors is not a violation of the First Amendment, said a bipartisan coalition of 31 states plus the District of Columbia in a joint amicus brief to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday. Later that day, South Carolina filed a document joining the coalition in asking the court to reverse a district court's 2024 decision to block the law (see 2402130041).
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.
NetChoice challenged the constitutionality of the statute on First and 14th amendment grounds in case 2:24-cv-00047 at the U.S. District Court for Eastern Ohio. District Judge Algenon Marbley granted a temporary restraining order (see 2401090059) and a preliminary injunction against the law for violating minors' rights.
The case, NetChoice v. Yost, heard oral argument in March, where Marbley peppered the state with questions about content neutrality (see 2503130036). In April, it was blocked on First Amendment grounds (see 2504160049). Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) appealed the case to the 6th Circuit, arguing NetChoice lacks standing to challenge the law, and that it does not violate the First Amendment (see 2508200032).
"According to NetChoice, tech giants like Google and Meta have a constitutional veto for any law that regulates their business practices simply because their platforms host speech," the brief by the coalition of states said. "The First Amendment, they say, grants platforms a right to contract with children, exploit their developing brains with addictive design features, expose them to sexual predators, and drive them to self-harm and suicide -- all while misleading the public about their products."
"The district court erred in permanently enjoining Ohio from enforcing the Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act," which is "a reasonable, constitutionally valid response to the harm that social-media companies are causing children," it added. "It zeroes in on commercial activity, regulating only platforms’ contracts with children, and it in no way threatens to 'drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace.'”
In South Carolina's court document, it said that "in the brief, the States raised important arguments for this Court’s consideration, including arguments emphasizing that States have a compelling interest in protecting children from social media companies’ predatory business practices," which is why they joined the coalition in asking the appeals court to reverse the district decision.