Ohio's Under-16 Social Media Law Threatens Ad Targeting for 2.4M Minors

For marketers, the Ohio ruling is a data wake-up call: if the law forces platforms to verify ages and secure parental consent for the roughly 2.4 million Ohio residents under 16, the pool of identifiable, targetable teen users could shrink dramatically. Platforms that rely on granular behavioral data from young users for ad targeting may see reduced effectiveness, pushing brands to explore contextual advertising or influencer partnerships that bypass direct data collection. The 11-factor test could even extend compliance obligations to non-social apps with significant youth audiences, widening the impact on campaign planning.

A federal appeals court has cleared the way for Ohio to enforce a first-of-its-kind law requiring social media platforms to obtain parental consent before allowing children under 16 to create accounts. In a 2-1 decision on June 18, 2026, the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower-court preliminary injunction, finding that the Social Media Parental Notification Act does not violate the First Amendment. The ruling marks a significant victory for state-level efforts to regulate minors’ online activity and places the Ohio law at the center of a heated national debate over child safety, free speech, and the business models of tech giants like Meta Platforms, TikTok, and YouTube.

“

District Judge Algenon Marbley after NetChoice — a trade association whose members include Meta, Alphabet, and ByteDance — sued, arguing the statute was unconstitutionally vague and forced users to hand over personal data to access protected speech.

The law, passed by Ohio’s legislature in 2023 and effective January 2024, had been blocked by U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley after NetChoice — a trade association whose members include Meta, Alphabet, and ByteDance — sued, arguing the statute was unconstitutionally vague and forced users to hand over personal data to access protected speech. The appeals panel majority, led by Judge Eric Clay, framed the law narrowly: “At bottom, the Act imposes a parental consent requirement.” By treating the measure as a mechanism for parental oversight rather than a direct speech restriction, the court sidestepped the strict scrutiny that usually applies to content-based regulations. The majority also emphasized the government’s compelling interest in protecting children from documented harms such as excessive screen time, exposure to harmful content, and data-collection practices.

The dissenting judge held that the law likely imposes unconstitutional restrictions on minors’ access to protected speech, echoing the reasoning that Judge Marbley used to block enforcement. This split reflects a deep judicial divide that will almost certainly prompt further appeals, potentially to the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision arrives amid a global wave of similar measures: Australia recently enacted strict age-gating rules, and multiple U.S. states have debated or passed their own versions. For now, the 6th Circuit’s ruling effectively gives Ohio a green light to enforce the law unless the full 6th Circuit or the Supreme Court intervenes.

Central to the law is an 11-factor test designed to determine whether a website or platform is “reasonably anticipated” to be accessed by children under 16. Factors include the site’s design, advertising practices, and the proportion of under-16 users. Websites that meet the threshold must implement age-verification systems and obtain verifiable parental consent. Certain exceptions exist — for example, for platforms that primarily provide news, sports, or e-commerce content. Critics warn the 11-factor test could sweep in a broad range of sites, from forums to gaming platforms, creating compliance burdens well beyond the largest social networks.