Ohio AG: NetChoice's 'Waffling' Makes for 'Unsatisfying' Product in Social Media Case
As Ohio and NetChoice continue sparring over the constitutionality of an Ohio social media law, the state's attorney general said the trade group "waffles" between its "supposed" goal of protecting children’s First Amendment rights and its "true mission" of keeping “social-media giants free from any regulation."
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.
"The product is unsatisfying," AG Dave Yost (R) said in a court document Thursday at the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (case 25-3371). As he has done previously, Yost asked the appeals court to reverse an April decision by the U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio to enjoin the law. The measure requires websites targeting children younger than 18 to obtain parental consent before engaging in contracts with minors (see 2508200032, 2504180031 and 2508200032).
“Though NetChoice purports to litigate this case for children, its arguments show surprisingly little regard for the many dangers children face when using social-media platforms,” including cyberbullying, sexual predators and mental health disorders, the AG said. Additionally, NetChoice’s “arguments largely ignore classic considerations that inform the First Amendment’s meaning -- basics like text, structure, and history.”
Yost added that the trade association’s goal is for “social-media companies [to be] left to ‘self-regulation.’” But this “benefits only the fox, not the henhouse.”
NetChoice's position is that the Ohio Social Media Parental Notification Act violates the First Amendment (see 2510030060). Several consumer advocates sided with the group in amicus briefs, criticizing the Act for the privacy risks it poses (see 2510150028).