EU KIDS ACT: European Commission proposes banning social media for under-13s and restricting access up to age 15

The European Commission announced the adoption of the EU KIDS ACT, an initiative intended to strengthen online safety for minors. The announcement by the Commission Representation in Spain presents it as a measure to restrict minors’ access to social media platforms. However, adoption by the Commission does not, in itself, mean that a rule is already applicable: the available sources do not set out the full legislative process here or specify when the obligations would take effect.

It is important to distinguish this initiative from the framework already in place. The Commission describes its harmonised age-verification approach separately, as a tool to help enforce age-based access restrictions and support the implementation of the Digital Services Act. It should therefore not be assumed that the EU KIDS ACT has already created all the obligations, penalties or procedures associated with enacted legislation. The central fact is the proposal announced; its practical application depends on the legislative documents and subsequent steps.

RTVE’s coverage of the Brussels announcement describes a proposal to ban access to social media for under-13s and to restrict accounts up to the age of 15. This description provides a useful indication of the thresholds under consideration, but it does not replace the text of the proposal. Based on the official documentation included in the research, it is not possible to specify which services would be covered, how each category would be defined or what exceptions, if any, might be provided.

Nor is it accurate to turn these thresholds into a rule that already applies to all families in the Union. The European Parliament had previously advocated restricting access for under-16s, according to its own announcement. That is a separate, earlier institutional position, not evidence that the Commission’s proposal has automatically shifted to age 16. The ages 13, 15 and 16 refer to different proposals or positions, and the final outcome requires reading the legislative text adopted by the competent institutions.

The Commission does document a harmonised age-verification approach developed with Member States. Its aim is to provide an easy-to-use, privacy-preserving way to demonstrate that a person meets the age requirement for accessing restricted services; the European Commission’s page cites checking that someone is an adult to access adult content as the first use case. The Commission describes it as one part of a broader online safety effort, not as a single solution to every digital risk.

The cited documentation does not support the claim that the EU KIDS ACT requires algorithmic age estimation, national credentials, validation by telecom operators or human review of incorrect results. These mechanisms appeared in the draft, but are not substantiated by the verified sources available. It also matters to distinguish between checking a specific age and disclosing more data than necessary: the Commission says privacy protection is an objective of the method, but that alone does not establish how each platform will implement it. Data minimisation is a relevant principle; the specific safeguards depend on the solution and the applicable rules.

The available official sources confirm the Commission’s announcement and describe the general age-verification approach, but they do not establish a general transition period of 12 to 24 months for platforms. Nor do they make it possible to set one date for the social media restrictions to take effect. It is therefore not reliable to present that interval as an official estimate or an approved timetable.

For the same reason, specific penalties under the EU KIDS ACT cannot be treated as confirmed, nor can it be claimed that they are automatically aligned with fines under the Digital Services Act. To establish obligations and dates, the relevant legislative text and its implementing provisions would need to be consulted once available. In the meantime, companies can follow the legislative process and review their child-safety practices, but that is a prudent recommendation, not a new obligation that can simply be attributed to the announcement.

If the announced limits are incorporated into a final law, the practical consequences will depend on its scope: which services count as social media, how age is checked and what conditions apply to teenagers. The available sources do not support saying that all under-13s will already be excluded from specific platforms, or that users aged 13 to 15 will necessarily have to link their accounts to those of their guardians. Those conclusions would require details that are not provided by the official material verified here.

For parents and guardians, the most useful course for now is to distinguish the announcement from measures already in force and consult official information as the process moves forward. The Commission presents harmonised verification as a tool that takes privacy into account, but that does not by itself resolve issues such as ease of use, data handling or the management of errors. These sources provide no basis for predicting that minors will move to less regulated services or the dark web; that kind of outcome should be treated as an unproven possibility, not as a consequence of the proposal.

The institutional source from the Commission Representation in Spain supports the claim that the Commission announced the adoption of the EU KIDS ACT and its general child-protection purpose. The Commission’s page on age verification explains the harmonised approach and its privacy and usability objectives. For the age thresholds of 13 and 15, the research materials include an RTVE account, which is journalistic coverage, not the primary text of the proposal.

The European Parliament, for its part, documents its own position on restricting access up to age 16. That position should not be conflated with the Commission’s proposal or described as the final age limit in force. In short, there is an institutional announcement, an age-verification initiative documented by the Commission and distinct positions on age limits. The verified sources do not set out the full timetable, mandatory technical details or final wording of the restrictions, so these questions must remain open until the relevant documents are published and go through the legislative process.