Ohio Children’s Privacy Laws (2026)

HB 33 (135th GA)

Enacted, enjoined · Social media · effective 2024-01-15 · binds operators, platforms

Ages: under 16

Requires: Operators of sites, services or products that let users interact socially, build a profile, keep a list of connections and post content, and that target children or are reasonably anticipated to be accessed by them, must get verifiable consent from a parent or legal guardian, by one of the methods the statute lists, before contracting with an unemancipated child under 16 (terms of service included) to register or create a username; give the parent a list of the product's content-moderation and censoring features with a link to review it later; send written confirmation of the consent; deny the child access without it; and end the child's access within 30 days after a parent withdraws consent. The Attorney General enforces exclusively (no private right of action), with civil penalties of up to $1,000 a day for the first 60 days of noncompliance, up to $5,000 a day for days 61 to 90 and up to $10,000 a day after that, and an operator in substantial compliance gets written notice and 90 days to cure first.

Timing: R.C. 1349.09 took effect 2023-10-03 with H.B. 33's general provisions, but Section 803.380 of H.B. 33 provides that its enactment applies on and after 2024-01-15, so no operator duty attached before that date

Litigation: NetChoice, LLC v. Yost, No. 2:24-cv-00047 (S.D. Ohio); appeal No. 25-3371 (6th Cir.). The district court entered a TRO 2024-01-09, a preliminary injunction 2024-02-12, and on 2025-04-16 granted NetChoice summary judgment and a permanent injunction that barred enforcement of R.C. 1349.09 entirely. No public record shows that injunction stayed or dissolved. A divided Sixth Circuit panel reversed on 2026-06-18 (Clay, J., lead; Batchelder, J., concurring in the judgment; Ritz, J., dissenting) and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the Attorney General, noting it need not reach the scope of the district court's injunction. Per the appellate docket, rehearing en banc was denied 2026-08-05 and the mandate was then stayed 2026-08-17 on NetChoice's motion; neither order is a published opinion, but both docket entries are reproduced free of charge in CourtListener's RECAP archive for No. 25-3371 (ECF 59, order denying rehearing en banc, 2026-08-05; ECF 60, motion to stay mandate, 2026-08-11; ECF 61, order granting the stay, 2026-08-17). The classification rests on them: with no mandate the district court has entered no judgment and the permanent injunction still binds, which is why this is enacted_enjoined rather than in_force. The stay order (ECF 61) stays the mandate to allow NetChoice time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari and thereafter until the Supreme Court disposes of the case, but directs that the mandate promptly issue if no petition is filed within ninety days from the date of the Sixth Circuit's final judgment.

Entry last reviewed 2026-10-01