Family · Statewide · OH · August 14, 2026
NetChoice Asks Supreme Court to Block Ohio's Teen Social Media Consent Law
What Alinsky tactic is being used
2 of the thirteen rules are in play here — campaigns rarely run just one.
Rule 9
“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
The line NetChoice put at the front of its motion is the tactic: if the mandate issues, "hundreds of thousands of minors in Ohio will lose access overnight." What the statute actually does is require a parent's verifiable consent before an under-16 opens an account — a signed form by mail, fax or email, or a card transaction — with enforcement resting solely with the Attorney General and no private right of action. The vivid threat of mass overnight cutoff is doing work that the text of Ohio Rev. Code § 1349.09 does not support.
Counter-Rule 9 · Courageous Realism
Name the worst case out loud and cost it honestly. Fear of the unnamed is doing most of the work.
Read § 1349.09 yourself this month — it is short — and write down on one page what actually happens to a 15-year-old's existing account: what consent methods a parent may use, that the operator must send written confirmation, and that a parent who withdraws consent triggers termination within 30 days. Then name the honest worst case out loud: some platforms may geoblock Ohio teens rather than build consent flows, and that is a real cost worth stating. Do not answer an exaggeration with a counter-exaggeration.
Rule 1
“Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”
NetChoice litigates as the voice of "minors' First Amendment rights," and that borrowed standing is the perceived power here — a trade association whose members are Meta, TikTok and Google speaking as if it were the users. The Sixth Circuit majority took the count and found the army was not there: it held NetChoice had not established third-party standing to assert the rights of Ohio minors, and reversed on that ground before reaching the merits. The claimed constituency was assumed rather than demonstrated.
Counter-Rule 1 · Reality Over Perception
Count the actual numbers. The phantom army depends on nobody checking whether it exists.
Read the standing section of the June 18, 2026 panel opinion (No. 25-3371) and note in your own words who the actual parties are. When someone at a meeting says "the courts have struck these laws down," ask which court, which case, and whether the ruling was on standing or on the First Amendment merits. And apply the same test to your own side: if a group says it speaks for Ohio parents, ask how many Ohio members it has.
Chapter 3 sets out the rules; Chapter 15 answers each of them in turn. This is that pairing applied to this story.
Know where you stand
The free 4-minute assessment identifies your mountain and your institution’s capture phase — so alerts like this one arrive matched to where you actually stand.
Facing this yourself? Ask. Describe what is happening and get what the book, Scripture, and the law of your state say, with the exact words to use. Your first one is free.