CONTACT: PRESS@NETCHOICE.ORG
COLUMBUS, Ohio—Today, a U.S. District Court in NetChoice v. Yost permanently struck down Ohio’s age verification law, which conditioned all Ohioans’ ability to access and publish information online to whether they are willing to jeopardize their privacy and security—ruling the law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The court declared that the First Amendment protects everyone’s right to speak and access information, including minors, and that lawmakers must follow America’s constitutional guarantees.
“NetChoice’s victory in Ohio joins federal courts nationwide in finding age verification and barriers to lawful information unconstitutional,” said Chris Marchese, NetChoice Director of Litigation. “The decision confirms that the First Amendment protects both websites’ right to disseminate content and Americans’ right to engage with protected speech online, and policymakers must respect constitutional rights when legislating.”
This permanent injunction in Ohio follows NetChoice’s victory against a similar law in Arkansas.
As the court in NetChoice v. Yost clearly put it: “Protecting children’s well-being is a laudable, perhaps even achievable, goal. But Ohio’s imperative is to achieve this goal through legislation that is constitutional.” NetChoice has been urging this all along, encouraging lawmakers in Ohio and across the country to formulate constitutionally sound proposals for digital challenges.
In America, the Constitution guarantees our rights that the government may not violate.
It’s time for lawmakers to respect those rights and focus on real, meaningful solutions to modern challenges.
Read Judge Marbley’s judgment and opinion HERE.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN: This is the SECOND permanent injunction NetChoice has obtained against laws violating free expression and free enterprise online.
- The Court clearly stated that the government—even with good intentions—cannot infringe on Americans’ constitutional rights, echoing a March 2025 permanent injunction in NetChoice’s Arkansas case.
- These issues, “[reside] at the intersection of two unquestionable rights: the rights of children to ‘a significant measure of’ freedom of speech and expression under the First Amendment, and the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children free from unnecessary governmental intrusion.” The government may not impede these “unquestionable rights” by branding a law as a safety measure.
HOW WE GOT HERE: Ohio lawmakers, like many other states across the country, were reasonably concerned about minors’ safety in digital spaces.
- But as NetChoice warned, an unconstitutional law that violates the free speech rights and digital security of Americans will protect no one.
- This is why NetChoice urges lawmakers to ensure they are following the Constitution when passing legislation—unlawful restrictions on speech do nothing to protect minors. This is now the SECOND permanent injunction to clearly declare this.
WHAT IT MEANS FOR POLICYMAKERS: Lawmakers cannot achieve their legislative goals by passing laws that violate the Constitution.
- Rules like Ohio’s and Arkansas’ are content-based and speaker-based restrictions on free speech (not “conduct,” as some like to wrongfully assert). They are thus subject to strict scrutiny—the highest burden a state must clear.
- Lawmakers in America must adhere to the Constitution. NetChoice emphatically presses policymakers across the U.S. to pursue meaningful and legal policies to foster a better digital experience for everyone, especially for our children and our families.
NetChoice is committed to keeping online communication safe and free across America. With two permanent injunctions stopping age verification laws that block access to free, lawful speech online, we hope to work with policymakers on constitutional solutions to digital challenges.
Read the Court’s judgment here. Find full case resources for NetChoice v. Yost here.
Please contact press@netchoice.org with inquiries.