Big Tech Rebuffed: Parents Regain Power

An appeals court just handed parents a rare win over Big Tech by ordering Ohio’s stalled limits on kids’ social media use back on track.

Story Snapshot

A federal appeals court says Ohio can enforce a law requiring parents to approve social media accounts for kids under 16.
The ruling reverses a lower judge who sided with Big Tech trade group NetChoice and claimed the law violated free speech.
The appeals judges called the consent rule a “marginal” burden that directly targets how platforms exploit children.^[1]
The case is part of a national fight over who controls kids’ online lives: parents or Silicon Valley.

Appeals Court Puts Parents Back in Charge of Kids’ Social Media

Ohio parents have watched this fight drag on for years while their kids scroll past toxic content that no one voted for. The law at issue, the Social Media Parental Notification Act, tells big platforms they must verify age and get parental consent before letting children under 16 open accounts.^[6] Supporters see this as basic common sense: if a site is tracking your child, shaping their feed, and harvesting their data, you deserve a say first.^[6] Big Tech and its lawyers, of course, call that an “infringement.”^[9]

Tech companies, through their lobby group NetChoice, sued to stop the law as soon as it was signed. A district judge in Columbus agreed with them and froze the law before it could take effect, saying it was a “blunt instrument” and likely violated the First Amendment.^[4] For over a year, that ruling meant Silicon Valley kept calling the shots while families waited. The appeals court has now said that judge went too far and ordered the block lifted so the law can move forward.^[1]^[2]

What the Law Actually Does — and Why Big Tech Fought It

The Ohio law does not ban kids from the internet or from getting news. It says that sites which target kids or are clearly used by kids must first verify if a user is under 16, then get “verifiable” parental consent before creating an account.^[6] Platforms must also give parents clear privacy and moderation information, so families know what content can be filtered or monitored on a child’s profile.^[6] That is the kind of notice many companies hide in fine print that nobody reads.

NetChoice claims the law is “overbroad” and interferes with free speech online.^[4]^[9] The lower court judge echoed that view and warned that the measure focused on access to content instead of specific features like “infinite scrolling.”^[4]^[10] But the appeals panel pushed back, saying the burden on speech is small and narrowed to one thing: getting a parent’s “yes” before a child hands over their time, data, and attention to powerful platforms.^[1]^[2] One judge wrote that kids’ “unsupervised assent” to terms that harm them is the real problem the law targets.^[1]

The Constitutional Fight: Child Safety vs. Free Speech Arguments

Every time states try to rein in social media for kids, the same script plays out. Lawmakers argue they must protect children’s mental health, privacy, and safety from addictive feeds and predators.^[5] Tech groups and civil liberties lawyers answer that these laws burden protected speech and are not “narrowly tailored.”^[5]^[3] In Ohio, the district court said the Act restricted minors’ access to broad categories of lawful speech and was both overinclusive and underinclusive.^[5]

The appeals court, however, stressed that the Constitution does not erase parental rights. The majority said the Act “at bottom” is a parental consent rule, not a blanket speech ban.^[1]^[2] It framed the requirement as a minor, targeted hurdle that helps families decide what contracts their kids sign with social media giants.^[1] A concurring judge added that a law is not vague “just because it has a wide berth,” undercutting claims that the text is too unclear to enforce.^[1] The case will likely continue, but the ground has shifted back toward parents.

Why This Ruling Matters for Families Across America

This Ohio fight is not just about one state. Similar age and consent laws in Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia, and California have been tied up or beaten back in court after NetChoice and other groups sued.^[2]^[5] Until now, the pattern favored Big Tech: judges blocked laws before parents ever saw a benefit. By upholding Ohio’s statute, the Sixth Circuit broke that streak and signaled that at least some federal courts are open to strong child-protection rules.^[1]^[2]

A US appeals court cleared the way for Ohio to implement a law that requires social media companies, including Meta Platforms' Instagram, to obtain parental consent before allowing children under 16 to use their platforms https://t.co/Tx0lx4cB6n pic.twitter.com/zOy5nI1ucn

— Reuters Legal (@ReutersLegal) June 18, 2026

For conservative families, this ruling speaks to deeper issues. Parents are tired of bureaucrats and corporate lawyers telling them they cannot even know where their kids have accounts. They watch Washington obsess over “disinformation” while doing little about kids’ anxiety, screen addiction, and exposure to adult content. Ohio’s law does not solve everything. But it re-centers authority in the home instead of in boardrooms in California, and that is a shift many parents have wanted for a long time.^[6]