Plaintiff NetChoice, a trade association whose members operate many of the largest social media platforms, sued defendant Yost in his capacity as Ohio’s Attorney General. It challenged Ohio’s Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act, which requires covered platforms to obtain verifiable parental consent before letting children under 16 contract with and use their sites. NetChoice argued the law violated the First Amendment and was unconstitutionally vague.

NetChoice asked the court to declare the Act facially unconstitutional and to permanently enjoin defendant from enforcing it. It pressed both a traditional facial challenge and a First Amendment overbreadth theory resting on the rights of minor users.

The district court granted summary judgment to plaintiff and enjoined the Act in full, holding that NetChoice had standing to assert children’s rights, that the law was content-based and failed strict scrutiny, and that its coverage terms were impermissibly vague. On appeal, a fractured panel of the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for defendant.

The court concluded that plaintiff lacked third-party standing to assert the rights of minor users, because its commercial interest in maximizing minors’ engagement was in genuine tension with those users’ welfare. It further held that although the Act is content-based and subject to strict scrutiny, it is narrowly tailored to Ohio’s compelling interest in protecting children and is not vague as applied to the social media operators it actually covers.

NetChoice, LLC v. Yost, 2026 WL 1758907 (6th Cir. June 18, 2026)