Fight over online age verification playing out in Ohio statehouse, federal agencies and courts
Ohio lawmakers are wrestling over how to keep kids from seeing what they shouldn’t online.
Courts have already put on hold an age verification system written into the 2023 budget. A hastily written provision tucked into this year’s budget was meant to keep kids from visiting porn websites. But as drafted, several large players contend the restrictions don’t apply to them.
And in an Ohio Senate committee hearing this week, lawmakers heard from supporters of two more age verification proposals. One has the backing of the tech giants who run app stores. The other has the support of child safety advocates, as well as different tech giants whose apps appear in those app stores.
Meanwhile the fight is extending beyond Columbus. In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the ACLU of Ohio filed an amicus brief urging the court to reject an appeal aimed at resurrecting the 2023 age verification system. Also, the Digital Childhood Institute, which is backing one of the Ohio bills, has filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission against Google. The group alleges Google knows which app store users are kids, but “knowingly markets harmful apps as safe for minors.”
The legislation
Ohio Senators heard from supporters of Senate Bill 167 and Senate Bill 175 in a committee hearing this week, bills that look fairly similar overall. Apps and app stores share an “age signal” to verify a user is old enough to use an app. Both measures mandate the availability of parental controls and task the attorney general with enforcement. Both sides even offer similar arguments, insisting their approach represents “a shared responsibility” or a way to ensure “every player is doing their part.”
But the bills differ on one central question: who bears responsibility for keeping ineligible users out?
Senate Bill 167 puts the onus on app stores.
“So, it’s really a simple ‘one place’ to do this, where the information already likely exists,” said Jennifer Hanley, Meta’s head of safety policy for North America.
When a person sets up an account with an app store they typically provide information about their age. Because the app store already has that user information, Hanley said, it’s the most logical place to restrict access based on age.
“Teens use up to 40 different apps a week,” she said. “So, without a centralized age verification system within the app store, parents would have to share personal information with each of these 40 different apps that teens might be using.”
Senate Bill 175, on the other hand, requires individual applications to build the moat. Matthew Bye, a managing director for Google, argued it’s the apps who should “provide parental controls and get a parent’s permission to provide access to any mature content.”
“It focuses protections where they’re needed the most, and it’s built on common sense,” he added.
Bye dismissed verifying a user’s age at the app store level as “invasive and unnecessary.”
“Imagine having to show your driver’s license just to download a weather app,” he said.
Both proposals got a pretty frosty welcome from lawmakers.
State Sen. Bill DeMora, D-Columbus, said both proposals amounted to censorship. What about a young woman who wants to track her periods? What about elderly Ohioans who just can’t figure out how to verify their age?
Sen. Bill Blessing, R-Colerain Twp., argued parents already have parental control tools, and he criticized both measures for relying on the attorney general to enforce the law. The first Senate bill, that would have app stores conduct age verification, has a narrow private cause of action; the other Senate bill explicitly has none. Blessing suggested giving a single elected official sole responsibility for policing some of the largest companies in the world might not end well.
“The problem with that is we create this regulatory capture, where all you have to do is control the AG’s office,” Blessing said. “Which means, hey, they don’t have to sue, and there really is no enforcement mechanism for this bill.”
The FTC complaint
While the Digital Childhood Institute was testifying to state senators for the bill to put the onus on app stores, the group was also filing a complaint against Google with the Federal Trade Commission. DCI President Melissa McKay told lawmakers parental controls are porous, app ratings aren’t reliable and kids shouldn’t be allowed to consent to app contracts. In its FTC complaint, the Digital Childhood Institute elaborated on those arguments.
Google offers parents the illusion of control, the group claims, noting children can “unilaterally withdraw” from parental oversight once they’re 13.
“By allowing a child to terminate oversight at a critical stage of development, Google negates its own promises of safety and gives parents a false sense of security, making these assurances deceptive under consumer protection standards,” the complaint states.
DCI explained Google relies on app age ratings from an outside group that are largely “generated through developer self-reporting with minimal oversight.” And the group criticized Google for allowing minors to agree to contracts with app developers.
“No title company or bank would treat a contract signed by a child as valid without parental consent, yet Google does exactly that at scale,” DCI stated.
“In any other industry,” the complaint added, “this would be recognized as legally and ethically indefensible.”
But the remedies DCI has in mind are sweeping. The group insists two “simple, common-sense steps would transform online safety overnight.”
First, obscenity anywhere on the internet should be blocked unless a user has first verified that they are an adult. DCI contends this makes “safety the default” and aligns with a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding a Texas law requiring porn websites verify a user’s age. Second, DCI wants a free “child-friendly browser” to be the default for kids under 18, with parents given the choice to allow a standard browser instead.
The amicus brief
In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the ACLU of Ohio took aim at a different age verification system for a taking a similarly broad-brush approach.
“Simply put, this statute violates the First Amendment. Aside from certain, specific categories of speech — most notably obscenity — minors have the same First Amendment rights as adults,” ACLU of Ohio Chief Legal Officer Freda Levenson argued.
ACLU of Ohio Legislative Director Gary Daniels added, “We also continue to monitor similar bills before the General Assembly which similarly, albeit not identically, restrict minors’ access to constitutionally protected speech.”
In an amicus brief, the ACLU acknowledged state officials had noble intentions but insisted the age verification statute is a mess. Determining which users need to provide parental consent would likely wind up requiring companies check every user’s age. And to determine who can provide consent for a specific underage user would require even deeper identity verification.
“The act will block minors and adults from accessing and engaging in speech they have every right to access and engage in online,” the ACLU stated.
While DCI looked to the Texas case to bolster its FTC complaint, the ACLU drew a distinction. The U.S. Supreme Court determined Texas officials were able to regulate access to sexual material because minors don’t have a constitutional right to access it.
“Minors suffer no such limitation when it comes to any other speech, including the plethora of political, religious, artistic, and educational content available on social media,” the ACLU wrote.
Follow Ohio Capital Journal Reporter Nick Evans on X or on Bluesky
Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.