Social media sites are transforming not only the daily lives of consumers, but also how companies interact with consumers. Here at Morrison Foerster, across all of our practice groups, we are seeing complex, cutting-edge legal issues arising out of social media. As with the Internet boom during the mid-to-late 1990s, social media is generating new legal questions at a far faster pace than the law’s ability to provide answers to such questions. In an effort to stay on top of these emerging issues, and to keep our clients and friends informed of new developments, Morrison Foerster publishes this blog devoted to the law and business of social media.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

sociallyaware-abajournalweb100-1

Aaron is the chair of the firm’s Technology Transactions Group and co-chair of the Interactive + Digital Media Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals.Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data- and technology-intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud-based technology, digital media (social media, AR/VR, gaming, streaming media, AdTech), AI, healthcare, consumer electronics, e-commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on branding and marketing, trademark licensing, and content-related transactions, as well as the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin-offs, and private equity investments.He has represented clients such as Autodesk, Meta, OpenAI, Splunk, Konami, Kaiser Permanente, SoftBank, Visa, and Yahoo, among others.Aaron has been recognized by numerous publications for his work on market-defining technology transactions. He is currently ranked by Chambers USA for “Technology Transactions.”Aaron also serves as co-editor of Socially Aware, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics. Aaron is also a sought-after speaker on new and emerging areas of law, and is a frequent presenter and panelist at conferences and legal services programs. In addition to his active practice, Aaron regularly provides pro bono assistance to various nonprofit and charitable organizations such as Common Sense Media and the Starlight Children’s Foundation. He is a member of the board of directors of California Lawyers for the Arts.While in law school at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, Aaron served as executive editor of the California Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. Following law school, Aaron served as law clerk to the Honorable William H. Orrick and the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins, both United States District Judges for the Northern District of California.

rubin_aaron_blog_150x150.png

rubin_aaron_common_640x280.jpg

rubin_aaron_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

rubin_aaron_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

rubin_aaron_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Aaron is the chair of our Technology Transactions Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals. Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data– and technology–intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud computing, AR/VR, AI, gaming, healthcare, consumer electronics, social media, e–commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin–offs, and private equity investments.

Aaron P. Rubin

Lawrence Gallick is of counsel in the firm’s Austin office and a member of the Technology Transactions Group.Lawrence focuses his practice on technology transactions and licensing matters. His diverse experience includes advising on SaaS agreements, cross-licensing agreements, research and collaboration agreements, development agreements, and distribution agreements. He counsels a broad range of companies across the software, hardware, life sciences, biotech and FinTech spaces, as well as other entities including universities.He advises clients in connection with general corporate matters including contract negotiations, and leasing and technology placement agreements.Lawrence also serves as co-editor of <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/" target="_blank">Socially Aware</a>, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics.Prior to joining the firm, Lawrence was counsel at another major law firm. Before earning his law degree, Lawrence was a web consultant, project manager, and web developer in Portland, Oregon, where he managed and consulted on projects using industry methodologies and performed custom development and integration of content management systems.Lawrence was named a Super Lawyers “Rising Star” in 2015 and 2018–2022, and is licensed in both California and New York. Lawrence earned his J.D. from the University at Buffalo School of Law, where he was the electronic systems editor for the Buffalo Law Review and awarded the ABA-BNA Award for Excellence in the Study of Intellectual Property Law.

gallick_lawrence_blog_150x150.png

gallick_lawrence_common_640x280.jpg

gallick_lawrence_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

gallick_lawrence_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

gallick_lawrence_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Lawrence Gallick

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster.Anthony advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. He regularly advises companies on the IP aspects of their M&A transactions. His clients include technology, digital media and content for television and music, financial services, and communications companies with diverse intellectual property assets and issues.His practice focuses on the legal aspects of developing, licensing, and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts, including outsourcing transactions, as well as content and data licenses. He regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to licensing and commercialization of digital media and content, digital content that is distributed over the Internet or streamed, mobile applications and social media, as well as the licensing of recorded music for distribution via digital platforms. Anthony is also experienced with issues relating to open-source software, software development, artificial intelligence and machine learning, cloud-based technology, and protection of proprietary information.Anthony has extensive experience working on matters involving disruptive technologies, such as blockchain. He has helped fintech clients with general intellectual property issues in connection with terms of service for online financial products and services.Anthony is an integral part of the outside pro bono legal team for nonprofit organizations based in New York, including advising clients on legal issues regarding entertainment, social media, privacy rights, and the negotiation of outsourcing and service agreements. Anthony received his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 2009. He received his B.S. from Cornell University in 2004.

ramirez_anthony_blog_150x150.png

ramirez_anthony_common_640x280.jpg

ramirez_anthony_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

ramirez_anthony_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

ramirez_anthony_social_600x600.jpg

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster. He advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. His clients include technology, media, and communications companies with considerable intellectual property assets. His practice focuses on the legal aspects of licensing and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts. He also regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to mobile applications and social media.

Anthony M. Ramirez

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header.jpg

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

News and Announcements

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides a data-driven look at the Federal Circuit.

Federal Circuitry

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech

Mofo Tech

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insight

Government Contracts Insights

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

MoFo’s Socially Aware blog provides timely updates and analysis of the many complex and cutting-edge legal and business issues arising out of social media.

Socially Aware

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Socially Aware Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

Never miss a post from Socially Aware. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

The Law and Business of Social Media

Morrison Foerster - Footer

A court in the Southern District of Ohio has issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Social Media Parental Notification Act, an Ohio law that would require social media platforms to obtain parental consent for users under 16.

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Web Scraping

Advertising

Antitrust

Arbitration

Artificial Intelligence

Asia

Autonomous Vehicles

Bankruptcy

Big Data

Blockchain

Class Actions

Cloud Computing

Compliance

Contracts

COPPA

Copyright

Crowdsourcing

Cyberbullying

Cybersecurity

Data Security

Defamation

Digital Content

Disappearing Content

Discovery

DMCA

E-Commerce

E-Discovery

E-Personation

Electronic Contracts

Employment Law

Endorsement Guides

Ephemeral Messaging

Ethics

European Union

Event

Fair Use

FDA Regulations

Financial Institutions

First Amendment

Fraud

Free Speech

GDPR

Hacking

Influencer Marketing

Infographic

Internet of Things

Investment Management Law

JOBS Act

Labor Law

Litigation

Live streaming

Marketing

Mobile

Online Contracts

Online Endorsements

Online Promotions

Online Reviews

Patent

Privacy

Product Liability

Protected Speech

Right of Publicity

Right To Be Forgotten

Section 230 Safe Harbor

Securities Law

Social Media Policy

Statistics

Status Updates

Stored Communications Act

Supreme Court

Terms of Use

Trademark

UK High Court

User-Generated Content

Wearable Computers

Topics

Blog - Editors

Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

Court Prohibits Ohio’s AG From Enforcing Social Media Parental Notification Act | Socially Aware

Lawrence W. Gallick

A court in the Southern District of Ohio has issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Social Media Parental Notification Act, an Ohio law that would require social media platforms to obtain parental consent for users under 16. NetChoice LLC, an industry group whose membership includes a number of large social media companies, challenged the legislation on behalf of its members and their users.The Act would impose age verification measures on social media platforms and require parental consent for users under the age of 16. The Ohio law applies specifically to platforms that target children or are likely to be accessed by children, which is determined based on the following factors:(1) Subject matter;(2) Language;(3) Design elements;(4) Visual content;(5) Use of animated characters or child-oriented activities and incentives;(6) Music or other audio content;(7) Age of models;(8) Presence of child celebrities or celebrities who appeal to children;(9) Advertisements;(10) Empirical evidence regarding audience composition; and(11) Evidence regarding the intended audience.Additionally, the Act makes exceptions for product review sites and “established and widely recognized” news sites with commenting functionality. Penalties for non-compliance include fines of (i) up to $1000 per day for the first 60 days of noncompliance; (ii) up to an additional $5000 per day for days 61–90; and (iii) up to an additional $10,000 per day for days 91 and beyond. While aimed at protecting minors online, the legislation raises serious concerns about free speech, vagueness, and compliance burdens on digital platforms.NetChoice, a trade association representing online businesses, filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, arguing that the Act violates the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of both NetChoice’s members and their users. NetChoice contended that the law unduly restricts freedom of expression and the right to access information on the internet. Moreover, NetChoice argued that the law is vague and would cause some companies to needlessly spend large amounts of money to comply with a law which may not even apply to them.The court first determined that NetChoice had standing to bring claims on behalf of both itself and its members, based on economic harms to its members as well as constitutional harms, such as the chilling effect on free speech if the court did not hear NetChoice’s claims. Next, the court scrutinized the Act through the lens of both the First and Fourteenth Amendments, considering its implications for free speech and the potential harm it posed to social media platforms and their users.1. Strict Scrutiny and Content Based Restrictions: The court determined that the Act was subject to strict scrutiny, the highest standard of review, because it is “content based.” Strict scrutiny requires the government to show that a law uses a narrowly tailored approach to serve a compelling government interest. The Attorney General argued that, by applying to sites that “target children” or are “reasonably anticipated to be accessed by children,” the Ohio law was simply tailoring its application to platforms that pose a risk to minors’ privacy, health, and safety rather than targeting any particular content. The court held, however, that provisions of the law that applied to sites with certain features were inherently content based, since they conveyed a message about the community that the site intended to curate and foster. Moreover, the court pointed to the exceptions for “established” news sites and product review sites as obviously content based (as an example, the court asked why the law didn’t also include exceptions for book and film review sites). Therefore, the court determined that the Act selectively regulates speech and is subject to strict scrutiny review.2. Vagueness and Overbreadth: The court found the Act’s vagueness and broad application potentially chilled free speech, with unclear compliance requirements for platforms. For example, the Attorney General argued that the Ohio law is concerned with protecting minors from entering into terms of service that permit use of their personal data. The court noted, however, that the law is both overbroad because it completely blocks minors from these sites absent parental consent, and also underinclusive because it allows that “a child can still agree to a contract with the New York Times without their parent’s consent, but not with Facebook.” The Attorney General also recited a litany of potential psychological and real-world harms to children from use of certain social media sites, to which the court replied that the law “is a breathtakingly blunt instrument for reducing social media’s harm to children.” With respect to vagueness issues under the Fourteenth Amendment, the court pointed to the law’s “eyebrow-raising exception” for “established” and “widely recognized” media outlets and concluded that “[s]uch capacious and subjective language practically invites arbitrary application of the law.”3. Impact on Minors’ Rights: Highlighting the 2011 Supreme Court case, Brown v. Ent. Merchants Ass’n, which invalidated a California law prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors, the court noted that the Ohio law does not enforce parental authority, as the Attorney General argued, but rather imposes governmental authority, subject to a parental veto. The court also made the converse point, that online platforms have a right to disseminate protected speech to both minors and adults.4. Balance of Equities and the Public Interest: After concluding that NetChoice had shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits and likelihood of irreparable harm, the court considered the final two preliminary injunction factors, whether the injunction would harm others and whether the public interest would be served by the injunction, noting that these two factors “merge when the government is a party.” While the Attorney General contended that the public interest would be served by allowing the law to go into effect and protect minors, the court was convinced by NetChoice’s argument that “the State has no interest in enforcing laws that are unconstitutional.” Accordingly, the court granted the preliminary injunction.This case is one of a number of recent and pending cases pitting legislative attempts to regulate social media platforms against the free speech rights and other constitutional rights of the platforms and their users. We will be following the case as it progresses, and will report back on any further developments.

Court Prohibits Ohio’s AG From Enforcing Social Media Parental Notification Act