716 F.Supp.3d 539
S.D. Ohio2024Background
- NetChoice, LLC, an internet trade association representing major platforms like Google, Meta, and X, challenged Ohio’s "Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act" (Ohio Rev. Code § 1349.09).
- The Act required certain websites to obtain verifiable parental consent before allowing children under 16 to create accounts, with exceptions for things like product reviews and established news media.
- Non-compliance could result in significant daily civil penalties after an investigation by the Attorney General.
- NetChoice sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction, arguing the law violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The court previously granted a TRO and considered the preliminary injunction after full briefing and a hearing.
- The court found NetChoice had standing both on behalf of its members and their users (including Ohio minors).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does NetChoice have standing? | Has associational and third-party standing for members and users | No injury-in-fact/First Amendment rights at issue | Standing exists for both members and users |
| Does the Act regulate speech? | Yes; it restricts access to and dissemination of protected speech | No; regulates commercial activity/contracting, not speech | Court: Act implicates First Amendment rights |
| Is the Act content-based and vague? | Yes; regulates by content, has vague exemptions and definitions | No; tailored for child protection, uses structure like COPPA | Court: Act is content-based, vague, subject to strict scrutiny |
| Strict scrutiny met? | No; fails narrow tailoring, over- and under-inclusive, alternatives exist | Yes; compelling interest in child safety, enables parental authority | Court: Act fails strict scrutiny, not narrowly tailored |
Key Cases Cited
- Virginia v. American Booksellers Ass’n, Inc., 484 U.S. 383 (Supreme Court recognized standing for vendors to assert rights of their customers in First Amendment challenges)
- Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (First Amendment bars government from dictating what we see, read, or say)
- Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786 (Struck down law limiting minors' access to video game content as violating First Amendment)
- Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (Protects right to receive information and ideas)
- Turner Broad. Sys. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (Explained difference in scrutiny for content- vs. content-neutral regulations)
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (Content-based laws require strict scrutiny)
- Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205 (First Amendment protections for minors)
- Sable Commc’ns of California, Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (Compelling interest in protecting minors, but speech restrictions must be narrowly tailored)
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (Standing in context of threatening enforcement action)