French child social media ban ruling unlikely to stop EU action, says expert

Annabelle Richard of Pinsent Masons was commenting after the Constitutional Council in France recently determined that Article 1 of a proposed new French law aimed at protecting minors from the risks associated with the use of social networks, which would have prohibited access to social media services for minors under the age of 15, was unconstitutional. 

While the law was adopted by French law makers, some members of the French parliament referred the bill to the Constitutional Council before it entered into effect. They argued, in particular, that its introduction into law would disproportionately interfere with the right to privacy, the freedom of expression and communication, as well as the constitutional requirement to protect the best interests of the child. 

The Constitutional Council said the proposed social media ban for under-15s was unconstitutional for three reasons.  

First, it considered the scope of the prohibited platforms to be excessively broad, violating rights to freedom of expression and communication. It noted that the prohibition potentially applied to any online platform allowing users to connect, communicate, share content or discover other users and content as the statutory exemptions remained narrow. The Constitutional Council concluded that the prohibition could apply to online communication services whose risks to the health and safety of minors had not been established. 

Second, it considered the prohibition was excessively general and absolute in nature, again finding this as violating rights to freedom of expression and communication. In this regard, the court reflected on the fact that the provisions would not allow holders of parental authority or legal representatives, having been duly informed of the risks, to authorise access to certain services and adapt the prohibition to the best interests of the child. 

Third, the Constitutional Council identified shortcomings regarding the age-verification mechanism envisaged under the bill, which it considered to disproportionately interfere with the right to privacy since the legislation failed to define the conditions, limitations, or safeguards governing such age verification. 

Richard said that while the ruling means Article 1 cannot be introduced into French law under the country’s constitution, it does not mean that the other parts of the law cannot be promulgated. Nor, she said, does the ruling prevent French law makers from preparing a revised version of Article 1, whether for reinsertion into the existing bill or as part of a new law, to address the shortcomings the Constitutional Council has identified.  

“Indeed, the Constitutional Council did not reject the principle of restricting access to social media for minors under the age of 15,” Richard said. “Rather, its objections focused on the lack of precision, safeguards, and individualised assessment within the legal framework. Consequently, if these deficiencies are remedied, a revised version could be reintroduced and would have a good chance of being enacted, provided it complies with the constitutional requirements – although it seems highly likely that any revised version would be challenged again.” 

In July, an expert panel tasked with advising the European Commission on child online safety matters recommended that “a harmonised EU-wide access restriction to social media and other digital services, including AI companions, for children under 13” be introduced.  

Under those proposals, children under the age of 13 in the EU would only have access to social media and other digital services in limited circumstances. Those include where the digital environment is “age-appropriate”, access is “time-limited”, and if there is either “parental authorisation and supervision” or access is enabled “in educational contexts”. The restriction would be underpinned by “proportionate” but “effective” age-assurance systems. For children aged between 13 and 18, a further set of measures were recommended – including “protective default settings” and limits on “infinite scrolling”.  

Responding to the expert panel’s report at the time, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said “action at European level” is needed. Reuters reported that von der Leyen is expected to announce new EU child online safety measures at her annual ‘state of the union’ address, scheduled for 16 September 2026.  

Richard said that, from a European law perspective, it seems unlikely that the decision of the Constitutional Court in France will stop the EU from pursuing a social media ban for children. 

“French and European legal frameworks protect substantially the same fundamental rights, notably the right to privacy and freedom of expression,” said Richard. “As a result, any future European measure restricting access to online services would likewise be required to satisfy the principle of proportionality and these right and freedom.” 

“In addition, the Constitutional Council traditionally seeks to ensure consistency between domestic constitutional law and EU law on the basis of Article 88-1 of the French constitution. This approach was notably affirmed in two decisions from 2004 and 2006 respectively, in which the Council held that the transposition of EU directives constitutes a constitutional requirement, except where an express constitutional provision or a principle forming part of the constitutional identity of France provides otherwise,” she said. 

Late last year, Australia became the first country in the world to ban children under the age of 16 accessing social media platforms. Earlier this summer, the UK government outlined its own plans to prohibit social media platforms from offering their services to children under the age of 16, from spring 2027.