Ohio Social Media Law Regulates Protected Speech in ‘Myriad Ways,’ Says NetChoice
The temporary restraining order imposed Jan. 9 by U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley for Southern Ohio in Columbus to block Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) from enforcing the state’s Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act when it took…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
effect Jan. 15 (see 2401090062) was the "correct" decision, said NetChoice’s reply Friday (docket 2:24-cv-00047) in support of a preliminary injunction. Nothing in Yost’s Jan. 19 response (see 2401220038) “supports any different conclusions now,” said the reply. Yost’s primary argument against the TRO and the injunction, that the statute regulates contracts, not speech, is “meritless,” said NetChoice. The statute “regulates protected speech in myriad ways, all triggering First Amendment strict scrutiny,” it said.