Consumer Groups Knock Ohio Social Media Act in Amicus Briefs
Several consumer advocates criticized an Ohio law requiring websites targeting children younger than 18 to obtain parental consent before engaging in contracts with minors. In amicus briefs Friday, the groups alleged that its age-verification requirement poses privacy risks and the law violates the First Amendment. They asked the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to join the district court in blocking the Ohio Social Media Parental Notification Act.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Privacy Daily provides accurate coverage of newsworthy developments in data protection legislation, regulation, litigation, and enforcement for privacy professionals responsible for ensuring effective organizational data privacy compliance.
A joint brief from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Electric Frontier Foundation (EFF), LBGT Tech and others noted the law was a violation of the First Amendment and that parental consent is easily overridden. In addition, the law will “erase people’s ability to speak anonymously online, and increase the risks of privacy invasions and data breaches.”
“The Act allows verifiable consent to be obtained by mail, fax, e-mail, online payment, phone, videoconference, or cross-checking government ID -- methods that are likely to be easily bypassed, invasive, ineffective, inaccurate, or all the above,” said the groups: There are also “legitimate privacy and security concerns” that can dissuade people “from accessing, or allowing their children to access, social media in the face of age or identity verification.” They added, “Anonymity is a time-honored, historic tradition” protected by the First Amendment.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression also slammed the age-verification element. “Requiring all users to produce proof of age in the name of protecting minors ‘is to burn the house to roast the pig,’” the brief said.
There are privacy and security concerns with age verification that “significantly" deter "many users due to concerns about security such as fraud and identity theft,” the foundation added, and requires users to forgo the anonymity of the internet. Its brief also argued the law is not narrowly tailored, regulates speech and unfairly burdens adults.
The Act was blocked by the U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio in case 2:24-cv-00047 in April (see 2504160049). However, Attorney General David Yost (R) asked the 6th Circuit to reverse the court's decision (see 2504180031). He has said the Act is constitutional and the appeals court should allow it to stand in case 25-3371 (see 2508200032).
NetChoice, which brought the case, has argued the law violates the First Amendment (see 2510030060).