Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act (Ohio Rev. Code § 1349.09, enacted in HB 33, 135th G.A.) ↗
Enacted in the HB 33 budget bill; operative date 2024-01-15. Preliminarily enjoined 2024-02-12 and permanently enjoined 2025-04-16 (NetChoice v. Yost, S.D. Ohio). On 2026-06-18 a divided Sixth Circuit panel REVERSED and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Ohio, holding NetChoice lacked third-party standing and failed to show facial unconstitutionality. The injunction is undone and the Act is again enforceable. Re-checked 2026-07-04: no petition for rehearing en banc or certiorari had surfaced (NetChoice's case tracker lists nothing after the June 18 decision, and the 14-day rehearing window ran ~2026-07-02); whether the appellate mandate has formally issued is unverified (docket bot-gated).
The Sixth Circuit's 2026-06-18 reversal is only ~2 weeks old as of the 2026-07-04 verification date; re-checked 2026-07-04: NetChoice's own case tracker lists no rehearing or certiorari filing after the June 18 decision, and the FRAP 40 rehearing window (14 days) ran ~2026-07-02 with no petition surfacing, but formal mandate issuance could not be confirmed (CourtListener/PACER bot-gated), and a certiorari petition remains possible for months. Re-check the docket before relying on the in_force badge. Status set to in_force because the permanent injunction has been reversed and nothing currently blocks enforcement, but this is the most volatile record in the batch. The Act was enacted inside the HB 33 biennial budget (Section 803.380 sets the 2024-01-15 applicability date). Penalty amounts and § 1349.09 subsection pins not verified. codes.ohio.gov geo-blocks some non-US networks; existence confirmed via a 2026-06-22 archive.org snapshot (200).
Scope
Binds the operator of an online website, service, or product that 'targets children, or is reasonably anticipated to be accessed by children'; a 'child' is an unemancipated consumer under 16.
Although the section is titled 'Parental Notification by Social Media Operators,' the covered-operator definition as described keys to targeting or reasonably anticipated access by children under 16 rather than to a profiles/feeds-style social-media definition; whether a given account terms-of-service agreement is a covered 'contract' turns on the statute's definitions.
Penalties
- Model
- Other
- Detail
- Enforced by the Ohio Attorney General, who investigates noncompliance; the section expressly provides no private right of action. Specific civil-penalty amounts were not verified here (omitted rather than guessed).
- Enforcer
- Ohio Attorney General
- Private right of action
- No
Key dates
- Effective
- 2024-01-15
Obligations (1)
Before an unemancipated child under 16 may contract to use a covered service, obtain verifiable consent from the child's parent or legal guardian (e.g., a signed form, a consent-linked payment method, or a call to a toll-free number), and terminate the child's access within 30 days if the parent later withdraws consent.
Statute’s own ages: Applies to unemancipated 'children' under 16; users aged 16-17 are outside the consent requirement (hence no 16_17 bracket).
Litigation history
- 2024-02-12U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Judge Algenon L. Marbley) granted NetChoice a preliminary injunction against the Act in NetChoice v. Yost→ Unenforceable statewide; the Act had already been blocked from taking effect on its 2024-01-15 operative date by an earlier temporary restraining order source ↗
- 2025-04-16District court granted summary judgment for NetChoice and permanently enjoined the Act, holding it a facially unconstitutional content-based speech restriction that fails strict scrutiny and is unconstitutionally vague→ Permanently unenforceable statewide pending appeal source ↗
- 2026-06-18A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (lead opinion by Judge Eric Clay; Judge Alice Batchelder concurring in the judgment; Judge Kevin Ritz dissenting) reversed the district court and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Ohio, holding NetChoice lacked third-party standing to assert its members' minor users' First Amendment rights and, on its own claims, failed to show the Act facially unconstitutional or unconstitutionally vague→ Injunction reversed. The Act is enforceable; the district court is directed to enter judgment for the State. First appellate revival of a state social-media minor-protection law in this dataset source ↗
Cross-state comparisons
- similarga-sb351 (Georgia): Both key their parental-consent trigger to under-16 (narrower than the under-18 social-media acts) and were preliminarily enjoined on First Amendment grounds, but Ohio's law was revived by the Sixth Circuit (2026-06-18) while Georgia's remains enjoined pending the Eleventh Circuit appeal, making the pair a clean example of near-identical laws diverging by circuit.
- similarne-lb383 (Nebraska): Both condition minors' access to covered online services on verified parental consent and drew First Amendment challenges from NetChoice.