• by Wendy Davis , Yesterday

The tech industry group NetChoice said in court papers filed Monday that it may ask the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its recent ruling that allows Ohio to enforce a law restricting teens' ability to use social-media platforms.

The organization specifically asked the 6th Circuit for a two-week extension of the deadline to seek a new hearing.

If granted, the new deadline would be July 16.

The group said it plans to use that extra time "to assess whether to file a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc and to prepare a petition should it decide to seek rehearing."

Earlier this month, a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit lifted a block on the Parental Notification By Social Media Operators Act -- a 2023 law prohibiting some web services with social functionality from allowing minors under 16 to create accounts without parental permission.

The statute generally covers operators of sites with social features (such as allowing users to create profiles and interact), and that are aimed at minors under 16 or are “reasonably anticipated” to be accessed by teens under 16.

NetChoice sued over the statute, arguing that it was unconstitutional for several reasons -- including that it restricts minors' First Amendment right to express themselves and access speech, and restricts social platforms' constitutional right to disseminate speech.

U.S. District Court Judge Algenon Marbley in 2024 found the law unconstitutional and issued an injunction blocking enforcement.

Earlier this month, the 6th Circuit panel lifted Marbley's injunction, ruling 2-1 that the parental consent requirement was constitutional.

"At bottom, the Act imposes a parental consent requirement," Circuit Judge Eric Clay wrote in the lead opinion. "That requirement constitutes a marginal burden that precisely targets the multi-faceted problem that Ohio has identified: Children’s unsupervised assent to terms and conditions for use of platforms that take advantage of and harm them."

Circuit Judge Alice Batchelder also voted against NetChoice, but said she did so because NetChoice sought to strike down the statute in its entirety, but failed to prove that every application of the law would violate its members' rights.

"From the record below, I cannot assess the full scope of NetChoice’s members’ services covered by The Act, much less the scope of services offered by nonparties," she wrote, adding that some services, such as direct messaging "may not warrant the same kind of constitutional protection" as others, such as curating a social media feed.

Judge Kevin Ritz dissented.