From Ban to Design: How Do We Protect Children Online?

09-08-2026 - From Ban to Design: How Do We Protect Children Online? 

Australia took the lead at the end of last year. As the first country in the world, it introduced a minimum age of sixteen for social media use. Children under that age are no longer allowed to hold accounts on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok, while responsibility for enforcement rests firmly with the platforms themselves. Meta has already stated that it has blocked more than 750,000 accounts in Australia. 

Australia’s decision inspired other countries to explore similar measures. France also sought to draw a clear line as the first European Union Member State to do so: children under the age of fifteen would no longer be allowed access to social media. Although the French Parliament approved the proposal, the French Constitutional Council declared it unconstitutional. According to the Council, it had not been sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed measures were necessary and proportionate in light of the restrictions they would place on fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and privacy. 

Risks and underlying causes 

The rationale behind the ban is rooted in concerns about the risks social media may pose to children. These concerns relate to various forms of online harm that children may encounter in digital environments. They may be exposed to harmful content, cyberbullying, grooming, sextortion, manipulative advertising, and privacy risks. In addition, regulators and lawmakers are increasingly focusing on the potential influence of recommendation algorithms, notifications, personalised content, and addictive design.  

This growing attention is reflected in European legislation. For example, the Digital Services Act (DSA) requires very large online platforms to identify, assess, and mitigate risks to minors (Article 34 DSA). The DSA also places restrictions on personalised advertising targeted at children. 

At the same time, the debate is shifting. While risks were traditionally associated primarily with user behaviour, increasing attention is being paid to the role of platforms themselves. This distinction matters. If risks are linked to the way a service is designed, then providers of services also bear responsibility for creating a safer digital environment. 

The results of a ban 

Australia opted for a legal minimum age of sixteen. However, early experience suggest that the effectiveness of such measures depends heavily on enforcement. Children under the age of 16 continue to find ways to access social media, for example by entering incorrect dates of birth or using technical measures such as VPNs. 

This highlights a fundamental issue. An age limit is only effective if it can be monitored and enforced. That requires age verification, oversight, and compliance mechanisms. Yet these same instruments raise new questions about feasibility, effectiveness, and their impact on other fundamental rights. 

The age verification paradox 

To exclude children under a specific age from social media platforms, providers must be able to determine a user’s age. In practice, this often requires the processing of additional personal data. This creates tension between different protective objectives. On the one hand, there is a legitimate desire to better protect minors from online risks. On the other hand, any measures taken must comply with core privacy principles such as data minimisation and proportionality. 

In other words, increasing the protection of  children online may require the processing of more personal data. This was precisely one of the key concerns raised by the French Constitutional Council. According to the Council, the proposal relied on broad age-verification measures without sufficiently demonstrating why such an interference with fundamental rights was necessary and proportionate. 

From ban to design? 

The experiences in Australia and France demonstrate that a ban for minors introduces new legal and practical challenges. The question is therefore not only whether children should have access to social media, but also which approach is most effective in reducing the associated risks. 

Increasingly, attention is shifting from access to design. If risks to minors are partly linked to the design of digital services, then part of the solution may lie not only in restricting access but also in making digital environments safer and more child-friendly. 

This approach is becoming increasingly prominent in European regulation. Under the DSA, platforms are held accountable for the safety of children. Concepts such as safety by design and child rights by design are playing an ever more important role. 

One important tool is the Child Rights Impact Assessment (CRIA). A CRIA enables organisations to assess in advance how a digital product, platform, or AI system may affect the rights, safety, and development of children. By identifying potential risks during the design and development phase, organisations can implement safeguards before harm occurs. 

An effective and sustainable approach 

Social media poses risks for children, and legislators are searching for ways to mitigate those risks. An age limit or outright ban is one possible instrument. However, Australia’s experience shows that enforcement is challenging, while the French ruling underlines that such measures must also comply with principles of necessity, proportionality, and the protection of fundamental rights. 

As a result, the discussion is shifting from whether children need protection to which combination of measures is most effective, practical, and legally sustainable. Alongside possible access restrictions, this requires greater attention to the design of digital services themselves. 

Considerati supports organisations in addressing these challenges. This includes conducting assessments to evaluate age-verification solutions, and identifying risks to children within digital services, AI systems and online platforms through impact assessments such as a Data Protection Impact Assessment or a Child Rights Impact Assessment.