It was one of the emblematic measures of the end of Emmanuel Macron’s second term, and its core has just been censored. On August 14, 2026, the French Constitutional Council invalidated the provisions that were to ban access to social networks for those under 15, just weeks before their first implementation.
The setback is significant for the French executive. But the debate extends far beyond France. From Australia to the United Kingdom, from Denmark to the United Arab Emirates, more and more governments are seeking to delay children’s entry onto major digital platforms.
Behind a seemingly simple idea, however, lies a series of much tougher questions: at what age should a child be allowed to open an account? How to verify their age without asking the entire population to prove their identity? Can a prohibition really work against teenagers who seek to circumvent it? And should we limit children or start by changing the platforms themselves?
The French decision has now placed all these questions back at the center of the debate.
In France, the Constitutional Council does not reject the objective but the method
The French Parliament had passed in July a law aimed at strengthening the protection of minors against social networks.
The mechanism planned to prevent those under 15 from opening a new account starting September 1, 2026. Existing accounts would then be closed within four months. Platforms would also be required to implement an age verification system.
The Constitutional Council did not challenge the principle that the State can intervene to protect children from digital risks.
It, however, considered that the chosen mechanism went too far.
The prohibition applied broadly to all minors under 15 and to a very wide category of services, without sufficiently distinguishing the child’s age and maturity, their family situation, the characteristics of the social network concerned or the level of risk inherent to each platform. Parents also had very little margin to authorize certain uses.
Another difficulty: to determine who was under 15, the system assumed verifying the age of all users.
For the Council, the legislator had not adequately framed the conditions under which this verification should intervene nor provided the necessary guarantees regarding privacy.
It therefore judged that the provisions amounted to a disproportionate infringement of freedom of expression and communication and did not sufficiently guarantee the protection of privacy.
So it is not a rejection of the principle of protecting minors, but a warning: protecting children does not permit implementing any digital control system.
Emmanuel Macron asked the government to rework the text with the objective of adopting a new system before spring 2027.
Why do governments want to intervene?
Behind this regulatory offensive lie concerns that have become hard to ignore.
In January 2026, the French National Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health Safety, Anses, published an important expert assessment devoted to teenagers’ use of social networks. It focuses in particular on links with sleep, anxiety, depression, body image, eating disorders, suicidal behaviors, and cyberbullying.
The scientific question, however, requires nuance: not all teenagers react in the same way, and the fact that intensive use of social networks is associated with certain disorders does not necessarily mean it is the sole cause.
Platforms can also enable communication, finding a community, learning, or maintaining social ties.
The problem mainly concerns certain intensive uses and mechanisms designed to retain attention: algorithmic recommendations, endless scrolling, constant notifications, highly emotional content, or social competition around appearance and popularity.
It is precisely this combination that is now pushing several states to intervene.
Australia, the first large laboratory
All eyes are turning to Australia.
Since December 10, 2025, major platforms must prevent those under 16 years from retaining or creating accounts. Australia has thus become the first country in the world to impose such a broad national ban.
The experiment is therefore watched closely by governments considering following the same path.
And its first lesson is far from simple.
On one hand, the Australian government says that more than five million accounts belonging to or likely to belong to under-16s have been deleted, deactivated or restricted since the regime came into effect.
On the other hand, a study published in the British Medical Journal among 408 adolescents aged 12 to 17 shows that about 85% of under-16s surveyed continued to use at least one of the platforms affected three months after the law took effect. The researchers conclude that there are still few elements allowing to identify an immediate and substantial reduction in use among adolescents already accustomed to social networks.
This figure does not, however, mean that 85% of adolescents consciously “hacked” the system.
The declared strategies to circumvent were much fewer: about 15% of 12-13-year-olds and 19% of 14-15-year-olds surveyed said they had used a fake account, while about 3% reported using a VPN.
The problem thus seems to come as much from teenagers as from the effectiveness of the control devices implemented by the platforms.
Verifying age remains the Achilles’ heel
The Australian study indeed shows that verification systems remain highly variable.
Around two-thirds of the adolescents surveyed had encountered a verification procedure, but only 5% of 12-13-year-olds and 11% of 14-15-year-olds had to provide a photo of an official identity document.
The most frequent methods consisted simply of asking for declared age or analyzing a selfie.
Yet a teenager can lie about their birthdate. Age estimation by the face has a margin of error. An account can be used by several people. And a particularly intrusive system can, conversely, pose a problem for personal data protection.
That is the paradox.
The lighter the verification, the easier the ban is to circumvent. The more robust it becomes, the more it risks turning everyday Internet access into permanent identity checks.
This is precisely the dilemma that the French decision has brought to light.
Australia does not give up, it tightens the pressure on platforms
The mixed results have not led Canberra to abandon its system.
The Australian government rather believes that platforms are not doing enough to enforce the law.
On June 28, 2026, it announced its intention to double the ceiling on penalties for systematic violations, from A$49.5 million to A$99 million, while strengthening the investigative powers of the regulator eSafety.
The Australian experience therefore does not simply demonstrate that “the ban doesn’t work.”
It shows something more subtle: a legally prescribed age limit makes sense only if platforms are truly capable — and compelled — to enforce it.
From the United Kingdom to the United Arab Emirates, the idea spreads
France is thus only an episode of a much broader movement.
The United Kingdom plans a ban on social networks for those under 16, with adoption expected by Christmas and implementation around spring 2027.
The Denmark has announced a threshold of 15 years, while allowing parents to authorize access to certain platforms from 13 years.
Turkey adopted in April legislation banning social networks for those under 15.
The United Arab Emirates set in June 15 as the minimum age to create or use a personal account, becoming the first Arab country to announce such a measure.
Malaysia now bans those under 16 from creating new accounts.
China follows a different approach, with a “minor mode” combining device-level restrictions, app-specific rules, and screen-time limits according to age.
In the European Union, the movement also transcends national initiatives. The European Commission is preparing to strengthen protection for children against addictive or dangerous features, while the European Parliament has already spoken in favor of stronger age restrictions.
An idea that seemed radical a few years ago is therefore gradually becoming public policy discussed on several continents.
But should we really ban?
Two conceptions clash.
Advocates of an age limit argue that asking families to fight alone against global companies whose products are designed to capture attention is unrealistic.
In this logic, the law creates a new social norm: just as for certain products or activities reserved for adults, it is no longer up to the isolated parent to justify why their child does not yet have access to a platform.
Opponents respond that a general ban risks creating an illusion of protection.
A determined teenager can lie about their age, use another account, or migrate to less regulated services. Some youths may also lose access to communities that play a positive role in their lives.
Add to this a principled question: should millions of adults be asked to prove their age or identity to prevent a minority of children from accessing certain apps?
The French decision shows that this question is not merely technical. It directly touches on public freedoms.
Another battle: changing the platforms themselves
The alternative to a total ban is to tackle directly how social networks operate.
Rather than asking only “how old is the user?”, regulators can ask:
Why can a child endlessly scroll videos? Why do they receive notifications designed to bring them back? Why can certain algorithms rapidly recommend extreme content? Why aren’t the most protective settings automatically activated for minors?
Anses precisely recommends acting more at the source on usage and platform design to better protect teenagers.
The European Union is also working on addictive and harmful design practices within its upcoming digital texts.
The battle could therefore gradually move: less about banning the child, more about constraining the product offered to them.
And Tunisia?
The question is worth asking in Tunisia as well.
However, the topic has not yet reached the political and legislative scale observed in Australia, France, or several European countries.
Yet the questions are the same for Tunisian families: time spent in front of screens, cyberbullying, exposure to violent or sexual content, social comparison, influencers, dangerous challenges, fake accounts, and extremely early access to smartphones.
If Tunisia were ever to consider an age limit, foreign experience suggests avoiding a purely symbolic law.
It would be necessary to determine which platforms are affected, how to control age, who keeps the verification data, what sanctions to impose on foreign companies, and how to prevent child protection from becoming a general surveillance system of internet users.
The real capacity of the State to impose its rules on large platforms would also be a central question.
What the Australian experience and the French reversal teach us
The two countries ultimately offer two different lessons.
Australia shows that a ban can be voted and applied without immediately driving teenagers off social networks.
France shows that a will to protect children can clash with fundamental freedoms when the device chosen is too broad or too intrusive
.
One reveals the problem of effectiveness.
The other that of proportionality.
And neither of these two problems can be ignored.
Ban or educate? Probably both, but not only
The real choice may not pit a strict ban against simple education of children.
A credible policy could need to combine several levels: a suitable minimum age, a verification that is reliable yet privacy-respecting, much stronger obligations on platforms, protective default settings, and digital education that begins before adolescence.
Because even the best law cannot accompany a child every time they pick up their phone.
And even the most attentive parents can hardly fight alone against tools designed by some of the world’s most powerful tech companies.
The French reversal therefore does not end the battle.
It instead shows how complex it is.
The question is no longer merely to know at what age a child should be able to open Instagram, TikTok, or Snapchat. It becomes much broader: what digital environment does a society accept to place in its children’s hands, and what limits is it willing to impose to protect them without placing all internet users under permanent control?
It is this battle that is probably only just beginning.
