A federal judge in Ohio has temporarily blocked a state law that would have required social media platforms to obtain parental consent before creating accounts for children under the age of 16. The law, known as Ohio's Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act, was set to take effect on January 15 but has now been put on hold while litigation continues. The judge, Algenon Marbley, ruled that the law likely violates the First Amendment in "breathtakingly blunt" ways and expressed doubts about Ohio's ability to prove that the law can survive First Amendment scrutiny.

The decision to pause the law is seen as a victory for the tech industry, which has been pushing back against a wave of state social media laws seeking to regulate how tech companies engage with young users. These laws have emerged in response to concerns about the potential link between social media use and mental health issues, particularly among minors. However, critics argue that these laws infringe on the First Amendment rights of both social media companies and underage users.

The lawsuit challenging Ohio's law was filed by NetChoice, a tech industry group whose members include major platforms such as Instagram-parent Meta, Google, TikTok, and Snapchat-parent Snap. NetChoice has also challenged similar laws in Arkansas and California, obtaining court orders last year to pause the legislation in those states. The group has also sued to block similar legislation in Utah, which could take effect by March.

In his ruling, Judge Marbley acknowledged the laudable aim of protecting children but questioned whether the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal. He described the law as a "breathtakingly blunt instrument" that restricts minors under the age of 16 from accessing all content on covered websites without affirmative parental consent. Marbley also noted that the law does not require platforms to protect against specific dangers that social media might pose.

The Ohio law, known as the Social Media Parental Notification Act, was part of an $86.1 billion state budget bill signed into law by Republican Governor Mike DeWine in July. The administration argued that the law was necessary to protect children's mental health, with Lieutenant Governor Jon Husted stating that social media was intentionally addictive and harmful to kids.

Both Governor DeWine and Lieutenant Governor Husted expressed disappointment in the judge's decision, emphasizing the negative effects of social media on children's mental health. They believed that the law would have empowered parents to have a role in their children's digital lives. However, NetChoice and other critics of the law argue that it is overbroad and vague, impeding free speech rights and lacking clarity.

The temporary restraining order issued by Judge Marbley will prevent the enforcement of the Ohio law while the lawsuit continues. NetChoice's director of the litigation center, Chris Marchese, welcomed the court's decision and expressed the group's commitment to protecting Ohioans' First Amendment rights, privacy, and online security. The outcome of the case will have implications not only for Ohio but also for other states considering similar legislation.