France’s Revised Under-15 Social Media Plan: What Changed and Why It Matters for Europe

France is making a second attempt to restrict social-media access for children under 15 after its first law was blocked by the Constitutional Council. The legal reversal is significant: it did not reject child protection as a goal, but found that France’s blanket approach went further than the Constitution permits. The revised draft has now been notified to the European Commission, putting the proposal at the centre of a growing European debate over age limits, verification and safer digital products. 2517

What France’s first bill would have done

The original law would have prohibited children under 15 from opening social-media accounts from 1 September 2026. Platforms would have had to close existing accounts within four months and use age-verification methods approved by France’s privacy regulator. 2

That model was a broad access ban: rather than differentiating among services or risks, it applied to a wide category of online social-networking services. 16

Why the Constitutional Council struck it down

On 14 August, the Constitutional Council invalidated the central provision. It concluded that the prohibition imposed an infringement on under-15s’ freedom of expression and communication that was not appropriate, necessary or proportionate. 313

The problem was not simply the age threshold. Reporting on the ruling indicates that the law did not sufficiently distinguish between individual minors or between platforms with different levels and types of risk. The required age checks also raised privacy concerns because a prohibition of this kind can require adults, as well as children, to prove their age before accessing covered services. 111416

In other words, the decision set a constitutional constraint on policy design: protecting minors may justify restrictions, but the restrictions must be tailored and supported by clear limits.

What is known about the revised French proposal

President Emmanuel Macron said on 14 September that the government had notified a reworked draft to the European Commission after “rigorous technical work.” Notification is intended to test whether national rules are compatible with EU law before they take effect. 45

The full operative text was not included in the material available for this report, so it is too early to state definitively which services, features, verification methods or exceptions the final draft will contain. But the direction appears narrower than the original blanket ban:

• A European Commission report describes France as proposing a limit at age 15 based on a blacklist of restricted services. 1718
• Separate reporting says the reworked measure would replace the general access ban with restrictions on a set of platform features characterised as harmful or addictive for under-15s. 6

Those descriptions point to a risk-based design rather than an identical prohibition for every online social service. Whether the final French measure resolves the court’s proportionality and privacy concerns will depend on the legal text and implementation rules.

Macron’s strategy: make the issue European

Macron has pursued two tracks. First, France notified its revised national proposal to the Commission to address EU-law compatibility. Second, he wrote to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen urging new EU legislation that would harmonise a ban on social-media access for children under 15 across the bloc. 14

An EU-level framework could reduce the practical and legal friction of 27 different national systems. It would not, however, remove the need for rules to respect fundamental rights, be enforceable, and avoid unnecessarily intrusive age-verification practices.

The Netherlands, Spain and Denmark: a common minimum age debate

The Netherlands and Spain have jointly called for a Europe-wide legal minimum age for social media, provided services are not safe enough for children. Their proposal calls for a proportionate, risk-based and enforceable system, with privacy-friendly age assurance rather than a patchwork of national rules.

Their discussion extends beyond conventional social networks. The two governments have argued that an EU approach should also cover video games, AI chatbots and other digital services that may expose children to harmful or addictive design. 20

The European Commission’s child-safety material identifies several national proposals: France at 15, Greece considering 15 for online social-networking services, and Denmark considering a limit for minors under 16. 1718 These are proposals or policy directions, not a single settled European rule.

The Commission’s alternative: tiered access and safer-by-design services

European policy thinking is not limited to outright bans. A Commission-backed expert approach recommends restricted access for under-13s unless a provider can demonstrate that its service is safe by design; member states could then add precautionary restrictions for older adolescents. 1718

Reporting on a prospective EU Kids Act similarly describes a tiered system for social media and video-sharing services before age 15, alongside requirements for safer accounts and products designed with children’s safety in mind. 22

This approach changes the policy question from “Should children be allowed on social media?” to “What level of access, features and protections is appropriate at each age?” It also places more responsibility on platform design, not only on parents and children.

How France fits the global trend

France’s proposal is part of a broader move toward stronger age-based online protections.

Australia’s restrictions took effect on 10 December 2025. Age-restricted platforms must take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under 16 from creating or retaining accounts; major services covered include TikTok, YouTube, Instagram and Facebook.

The UK government has announced plans to bring an under-16 social-media ban to Parliament before Christmas, with protections expected in spring 2027. Its proposed model would cover user-to-user social platforms, while messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal are not intended to be included. The UK is also considering restrictions involving livestreaming and contact with strangers through gaming apps.

The available sources do not provide sufficiently reliable detail to characterise a specific Japanese proposal. That absence matters: the international trend is real, but countries are choosing very different legal models—account bans, minimum ages, feature restrictions, supervision requirements and safer-by-design obligations.

The key test for France’s second attempt

France’s first bill showed that a politically popular child-protection objective can still fail if its legal scope is too broad. The revised draft’s prospects will turn on practical details: which services or features are covered, how risks are assessed, whether parents have a role, how age is verified, and what privacy safeguards apply.

France is now trying to shift that difficult balancing exercise from a national fight into a European standard. The outcome could help determine whether Europe’s child-safety agenda is built around blanket prohibitions, graduated access, or a combination of age limits and product-design rules. 117