Global Social Media Restrictions for Minors: The EU KIDS Act, Australia and California

Governments are increasingly regulating who may use social media and how platforms must serve younger users, not simply requiring parental controls or content moderation. The emerging models range from Australia’s under-16 account restriction to the European Commission’s graduated EU KIDS Act proposal and California’s restrictions on addictive product features. 20

The EU KIDS Act: a graduated model of access

The European Commission proposed the EU KIDS Act on September 17, 2026. It would prohibit children under 13 from accessing social-media services and set 15 as the EU-wide age at which a minor could open and manage an independent account.

For children aged 13 to under 15, the proposal would allow a guardian-managed mini account with limited functions and a one-hour daily time restriction. The Commission says those accounts would provide access to age-appropriate social-media and video-sharing services.

The proposal also shifts responsibility toward platform design. Services used by minors would face safety-by-design requirements, including protections aimed at limiting harmful or addictive features. Reports on the proposal say penalties could reach 6% of worldwide annual turnover.

This is not yet an EU law. It must be considered by the European Parliament and EU member states before it can take effect.

Australia is the real-world test of a broad account ban

Australia’s approach is more categorical. Its Online Safety Act provisions require providers of certain social-media platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under 16 from holding accounts. The rules took effect on December 10, 2025. 2022

The law is now being tested in the High Court of Australia. In Reddit, Inc. v Commonwealth of Australia & Anor, the Court identifies the constitutional question as whether the relevant provisions impermissibly burden Australia’s implied freedom of political communication. 20

NetChoice and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have sought leave to be heard as amici curiae in Reddit’s case, arguing on that same political-communication question. 19 The challenge makes Australia important beyond its borders: it is an early test of whether a democracy can sustain a sweeping age-based account restriction against constitutional and privacy objections.

Other countries are pursuing different age thresholds

The movement is not converging on one universal cutoff. France has enacted an under-15 social-media restriction, while Denmark has pursued an under-15 model that contemplates parental access for some children from age 13. Norway has signaled a proposed under-16 restriction, and the UK has discussed an under-16 ban with implementation targeted around spring 2027. 11014

The differences matter. A rule that blocks all accounts below a set age is easier to describe, but it creates harder questions about verification and legitimate access. A tiered system, such as the EU proposal, attempts to preserve limited supervised access while imposing more product constraints on services for children.

California is focusing on product mechanics

California’s recent laws illustrate a third path: regulating the features that can drive prolonged use. Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation in September 2026 that prohibits social-media companies from providing addictive features to users under 16 and expands other online-child-safety safeguards.

California’s earlier SB 976, the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, makes it unlawful for covered online platforms to provide addictive feeds and certain other features to minors without verifiable parental consent. The state attorney general is required to adopt regulations on age assurance and parental-consent methods by January 1, 2027.

A related California package also creates potential penalties of up to $1 million per child for large social-media companies found negligent in harming children through their platforms.

The unresolved issue: age assurance without pervasive identification

Taken together, these policies mark a move from regulating unlawful content toward regulating access, recommendations, autoplay, notifications, feeds and account design.

Their practical success depends on age assurance. Platforms must distinguish children from adults and apply different account rules or features, yet overly intrusive verification could create privacy and access problems for everyone. Australia’s litigation shows the related legal question: whether broad child-protection measures can be designed without imposing an unjustified burden on political participation. 1920

The direction of travel is clear, but the final model is not. The EU’s proposed tiered accounts, Australia’s account restriction and California’s feature limits are competing blueprints for the next phase of youth social-media policy.