Close this menu

NetChoice v. Yost

Key Takeaways:
  • NetChoice is asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to halt the Social Media Parental Notification Act from going into effect while our case, NetChoice v. Yost, moves through the legal system.
  • The Act violates the U.S. Constitution in several ways, including conditioning all Ohioans’ First Amendment right to share and receive information online on their willingness to hand over their most sensitive, personal data. The Act also endangers the online privacy and security of all Ohioans—adults and children alike.
  • It doesn’t have to be this way. Lawmakers can keep kids safe online, respect the Constitution, and protect civil liberties.
What's At Stake
  • Hinging one's ability to access and publish information online to whether they are willing to upload private records, regardless of age, violates the First Amendment.
  • Tech services will be forced by law to store the sensitive user data of adults and children alike. This will make them a prime target for cyber criminals and predators.
  • Families should determine how their own children and teen use internet services. The State should not unconstitutionally grab power that usurps the rights of parents and guardians.
Case Brief

Case Status: Complaint Filed

Latest Update: January 5, 2024


  • Steve Lehotsky
  • Scott Keller
  • Jeremy Evan Maltz
  • Todd Disher
  • Joshua P. Morrow
  • Michael C. Cotton
  • Alexis Swartz

Lehotsky Keller Cohn

  • District Court
    5-Jan, NetChoice files initial complaint
  • District Court
    8-Jan, Judge Algenon L. Marbley granted NetChoice a temporary restraining order
  • District Court
    12-Feb, Judge Algenon L. Marbley granted NetChoice's request for a preliminary injunction against the law

Ohio lawmakers had good intentions, being concerned about the mental health and well being of young people. But unfortunately, the law they implemented, the Social Media Parental Notification Act, violates constitutional rights and rips away a parent’s authority to care for their child as they find appropriate—all while violating the safety and security of ALL Ohioans, especially kids and teens. NetChoice is fighting to stop it.

NetChoice is suing the State of Ohio over the Social Media Parental Notification Act to ensure Ohioans’ First Amendment rights are protected online, protect the safety and security of all Ohioans—especially children, and keep parents in charge of their families—not big government.

Included in our motion for a preliminary injunction is a request for a temporary restraining order to give the court more time to consider the injunction request before the State begins enforcement.

Ohioans do not have to choose between protecting their kids online, their constitutional rights or their personal privacy. With NetChoice v. Yost, we will fight to ensure that this Invasion of Privacy Act is overturned.

Read NetChoice’s initial complaint, filed on 5-Jan, here.

Chris Marchese – Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center

Link to bio

Nicole Saad Bembridge – Associate Director of Litigation

Link to bio

Paul Taske – Litigation Center Counsel

Link to bio

Court Filings

NetChoice complaint, filed Jan 5, 2024, in the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Ohio’s answer to the complaint, filed Jan. 31, 2024.

NetChoice released a press release upon filing the complaint.

On February 12, 2023, Judge Algeron L. Marbley granted NetChoice’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

NetChoice’s request for Preliminary Injunction (PI) and a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was filed on January 5, 2024 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

On January 8, 2024, Judge Algenon L. Marbley granted NetChoice a temporary restraining order against the Social Media Parental Notification Act.

State’s Memo in Opposition to NetChoice’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction was filed on January 19, 2024.

NetChoice’s reply to Ohio’s Opposition was filed on January 26, 2024.