To enact section 1349.07 of the Revised Code to require application stores to offer parental control options and to obtain parental consent before permitting individuals under 16 years of age to download certain applications.
HB226 would create a new section of the Ohio Revised Code requiring app stores, device manufacturers, operating system providers, and app developers to take steps aimed at identifying whether users are children and, in some cases, obtaining parental consent before minors can download certain apps. Beginning in 2026, developers would have to determine whether an app is likely to be accessed by children and notify app stores; app stores would have to provide a mechanism for that notice, obtain parental consent before allowing a user known or reasonably believed to be under 16 to download a covered app, and pass along age-related signals to developers. The bill also requires device and operating system manufacturers to make commercially reasonable and technically feasible efforts to estimate a primary user’s age, and it directs developers to provide parental supervision features such as account linking, age-appropriate content controls, and daily time limits.
The bill is framed as a child-safety and parental-control measure for digital platforms. It applies to apps and online services likely to be accessed by children, while excluding broadband internet access service, telecommunications services, and physical products not connected to the internet. The bill also includes provisions intended to limit data collection beyond what is already used in the ordinary course of business, preserve existing account controls where sufficient, and avoid interference with antitrust law. Enforcement would be handled exclusively by the attorney general through civil actions, with notice-and-cure procedures and potential damages of up to $2,500 per violation.
If enacted, HB226 would add a new consumer-protection and online-safety requirement to Ohio law by imposing age-determination, parental-consent, and parental-control obligations on app stores, device makers, operating systems, and developers. It would create new compliance duties for businesses distributing software in Ohio, especially platforms that host apps used by minors, and would authorize the attorney general to enforce those duties through civil penalties after notice. The bill would not create a private right of action, and it includes defenses for entities that act in reasonable reliance on age or consent signals or otherwise take commercially reasonable and technically feasible steps to comply.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the available context suggests the measure is presented in a generally protective, pro-parental-control posture rather than as a controversial partisan measure at this stage. The sponsor and cosponsors appear to support stronger safeguards for children using digital applications. Because the bill was only introduced and had no recorded votes or committee debate in the provided materials, there is no documented public sentiment in the record beyond the bill’s stated child-safety rationale.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the scope and feasibility of the compliance obligations, especially for app stores and developers that would need to estimate user ages, obtain parental consent, and provide real-time age signals. Technology companies may also object to the bill’s impact on product design, data handling, and distribution practices, while supporters are likely to emphasize parental oversight and child protection. Another likely issue is the bill’s interaction with privacy, antitrust, and platform-neutrality concerns, though the text attempts to address those by limiting data collection, preserving antitrust law, and requiring nondiscriminatory application of the rules.