The new plan, contained in Senate Bill 167, represents a slight change in approach — ultimately putting the burden of obtaining and abiding by parental consent on app stores.
Under the bill, phone and operating system manufacturers would be required to take “commercially reasonable and technically feasible steps to determine or estimate the age of the primary user of the device.”
From there, the bill would require app marketplaces like the Apple App Store or Google Play to obtain parental consent before any user the store operator “knows or should know is under sixteen years of age” can actually download the app.
Bill sponsor Sen. Michelle Reynolds, R-Canal Winchester, told reporters Thursday that S.B. 167 is “going to be able to withstand the constitutional challenges (that) at least we believe may come up.”
“While the ‘what’ may be the same, the ‘how’ is different,” Reynolds said.
However, it’s not clear if the “how” will be different enough to escape a federal court’s concerns.
In early 2024, when the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio blocked the state’s first attempt, Judge Algenon L. Marbley argued that the legislation lacked the necessary elements to protect the First Amendment rights of both minors and app operators.
“Foreclosing minors under sixteen from accessing all content on websites that the Act purports to cover, absent affirmative parental consent, is a breathtakingly blunt instrument for reducing social media’s harm to children,” Marbley wrote at the time.
The lawsuit that foiled Ohio’s first plan was brought by NetChoice, a tech trade association that acted on behalf of X, Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, Google and other tech giants. Bill sponsors said at least one of those industry powerhouses, Meta, is in support of this new legislation.
A bill identical to S.B. 167 will be introduced in the House by Rep. Melanie Miller, R-Brook Park. She told reporters Thursday that she believes the new approach “strikes a balance between protecting our children and upholding the First Amendment free speech rights.”
She called the newly proposed framework user-friendly.
“When a teen tries to download an app on their smartphone, the parent would simply receive a notification on their phone to either approve or deny the download,” Miller said. ”The app wouldn’t download on the teen’s phone unless the parent approves it. This legislation will put parents, not the government, in charge of their children’s online access."
Like the state’s first attempt, S.B. 167 would require app operators to provide tools to allow parents to manage the accounts associated with their child, manage the age-appropriateness of content, and set usage limits on their child’s account.
Neither S.B. 167 or its yet-to-be-named House counterpart have been referred to committee yet, but Miller and Reynolds said they’re looking forward to the debate that’s sure to ensure.
For more stories like this, sign up for our Ohio Politics newsletter. It’s free, curated, and delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday evening.
Avery Kreemer can be reached at 614-981-1422, on X, via email, or you can drop him a comment/tip with the survey below.
About the Author
