France becomes first European country to ban social media for minors under 15
French Parliament passed a law banning children under 15 from accessing social media, making France the first EU country to enact such a restriction. The measure stems from President Emmanuel Macron’s 2017 campaign against online anonymity and abuse, and requires platforms to perform age verification for all users. Platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat are expected to be affected; new accounts must verify age from Sept. 1, 2026, while existing accounts for minors have until Jan. 1, 2027 to comply. The law extends France’s existing smartphone ban in middle schools to high schools and has prompted other European nations to consider adopting similar rules.
2 months ago
France’s parliament approved a law that bars anyone under 15 from using social‑media platforms, making France the first European nation to set a “digital age of majority.” The measure, championed by President Emmanuel Macron since 2017, is framed as a child‑protection initiative but has sparked debate over privacy, enforcement and its broader implications for internet regulation. 1 3
The Senate voted 243‑2 in favor of the compromise bill on 21 July, and the National Assembly approved it a few hours later, sending it to President Macron for signature pending Constitutional Council review. 1
The core provision prohibits minors under 15 from accessing “online social‑network services.” Major platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat fall under the ban, while encyclopedias (e.g., Wikipedia), open‑source software and educational sites are expressly exempt. 3
Platforms must implement at least two age‑verification methods and rely on a trusted third‑party that checks an ID document or bank card, then issues an anonymous token indicating whether the user is over or under 15, without revealing identity. 1
Enforcement is staged: new accounts created after 1 September 2026 will undergo age checks immediately, whereas existing accounts belonging to under‑15 users must be suspended by 1 January 2027. 3
The law also expands France’s existing ban on smartphones in middle schools to high schools beginning the 2026‑27 school year. 1
Government officials present the law as a safeguard against addiction, bullying and online abuse. Anne Le Hénanff, minister delegate for digital sovereignty, called it a pioneering “digital age of majority.” 1
Digital‑rights groups, including La Quadrature du Net and the Conseil national du numérique, warn that the scheme amounts to “generalized surveillance disguised as child protection” and raise concerns about data breaches and the vague definition of verification procedures. 3
The European Center for Law and Justice argues that France’s approach, alongside the European Commission’s parallel development of an EU‑wide age‑verification tool, could set a precedent for broader identity‑checking across the bloc. 3
Several advocacy organisations have announced plans to challenge the law before France’s Council of State and the EU Court of Justice on grounds of free‑expression and proportionality. 3
France joins a small group of nations with statutory minimum ages for social‑media use. Australia introduced a 16‑year minimum in December 2025; early studies show limited impact, with about 85 % of 12‑ to 15‑year‑olds still accessing restricted platforms via fake accounts or private browsers. 3
European officials note that roughly 15 countries, including Greece (ready to transpose the French model) and Spain (expected to follow in the fall), are considering similar legislation. 1
The European Commission is developing an EU‑wide age‑verification application, slated for release by the end of 2026, which could standardise the process across member states. 1
The French law establishes a new regulatory benchmark in Europe, but its practical impact remains uncertain. Critics highlight potential privacy risks and the likelihood of circumvention, while supporters argue that a clear age floor is essential for protecting minors online. Ongoing legal challenges and forthcoming EU tools will shape how the “digital age of majority” evolves across the continent.
Catholic teaching on protecting children’s moral formation
Catholic teaching approaches the protection of children’s moral formation as a matter of justice toward children (they must be helped to grow), a duty of parents (they must guide what children are exposed to), and a responsibility of society (the common good requires laws and institutions that reduce morally harmful influences).
Catholic documents insist that children are to be treated not as a secondary concern, but as persons whose development requires protection. In particular, the Church calls for commitment to children’s well-being both in Church institutions and in society.
The Church also frames protection as protecting children’s right to an environment consistent with their moral and emotional growth—especially regarding the family’s central role.
Several sources emphasize that the task is not merely defensive (blocking evil), but educational and formational: children should be educated in authentic moral values and helped to develop a rightly formed conscience.
Pontifical teaching on communication stresses that parents should not only protect by restriction, but also by forming judgment and understanding (“deepen their understanding,” “learn to pass sound judgements”).
Vatican II’s teaching is direct: parents have a “most serious duty to guard carefully” so that morally harmful shows, publications, and similar things do not enter the home or affect children “under other circumstances.”
Pope Francis likewise describes a concrete parental responsibility: parents should consider who provides a child’s entertainment, who enters the child’s room through electronic devices, and with whom children spend their free time—because this is how harm can be prevented through vigilance rather than neglect.
Amoris Laetitia teaches that families cannot avoid responsibility: “Vigilance is always necessary and neglect is never beneficial.”
This does not reduce parenting to anxiety; it recognizes that moral formation occurs through daily exposure—especially media and peer influence—and thus requires active attention.
Catholic teaching does not pretend children can be isolated from every danger. Parents must prepare children and adolescents to confront risks such as aggression, abuse, or drug addiction.
That preparation is part of “shielding them from harm” through structured guidance and time devoted to important conversations.
A Church document connected to pastoral care stresses that children deserve to grow up with “a healthy understanding of sexuality and its proper place in human relationships,” and to be “spared the degrading manifestations and the crude manipulation of sexuality” found in contemporary media.
The same source links this to child protection broadly—asking what “child protection” means when pornography and violence can be viewed in many homes through widely available media.
A pastoral response on pornography and violence presents a comprehensive approach:
This aligns with Vatican II’s insistence on moderation and self-control for those using media, plus the need for discussion and sound judgment.
Pope Benedict XVI criticizes entertainment that “exalt[s] violence” or “trivializ[es] human sexuality,” calling it a perversion when directed at children and adolescents. He also asks media leaders to educate and encourage producers to safeguard the common good and uphold family life and human dignity.
This reinforces a Catholic principle: moral protection is not only about what parents do at home; it includes what society makes widely available—especially through media.
The Congregation for Catholic Education warns against hiding behind the pretext of neutrality in the child’s “spontaneous development.” It describes juridical regulation of communications instruments as having a role in protecting public morality—particularly for youth.
Communio et Progressio states that, as far as possible, law should protect young people from what can cause permanent psychological or moral harm, and that legislation should support the work of family and school in educating the young.
This indicates that protection of moral formation is not purely private; it is a matter that public authority must address in the name of the common good.
Pope John Paul II explicitly notes that parents and educators must take responsibility—even associatively—to preserve children and adolescents from morally damaging media and messages.
He also cites Conciliar teaching that parents must ensure morally harmful content does not enter the home and that children avoid harmful influences elsewhere.
While child protection includes safeguarding against abuse, Catholic sources also describe it as part of a wider moral and cultural renewal. A Vatican document urges that the policies and programs of pastoral care need to be placed in a “wider context,” because children’s moral formation is undermined when sexuality is manipulated and when pornography and violence are accessible in homes through media.
This is why a “determined, collective response” is requested—since abuse and degraded moral mores are not limited to ecclesial settings.
A US bishops’ statement emphasizes opposition to contraceptive and abortion mandates in public programs and health plans, describing them as endangering rights of conscience and interfering with parents’ right to guide children’s moral formation.
This illustrates a Catholic principle: protecting children’s moral formation includes defending the moral freedom of parents so they can truly shape their children’s formation.
That same statement also asserts that children who may be placed in foster care or adoptive homes have a right to be placed in environments that do not contradict the “authentic meaning of marriage,” and it supports the right of child welfare providers to act consistent with religious beliefs.
Catholic teaching protects children’s moral formation by combining (1) parental vigilance and guidance over what children consume and with whom they spend time, (2) education that forms conscience and judgment rather than relying only on prohibition, (3) media and communication responsibilities to avoid violence and the trivialization/manipulation of sexuality (especially for youth), and (4) public authority’s duty to protect young people from moral harm through laws that support families and schools—all while defending parents’ rights and conscience.