EU moving toward social media ban/rules for kids

 

Brussels unveils plans for EU-wide social media ban for kids under 13

By Paul Godfrey    

The EU KIDS Act will bar children younger than 13 from social media, route older kids' access via their parents' accounts and impose new safety-by-design" requirements on all online and video sharing platforms providing services to anyone under the age of 18. File photo Sascha Steinbach/EPA

Sept. 17 (UPI) -- Brussels confirmed Thursday it will move ahead with legislation that will see a blanket EU social media ban for children younger than 13, sets 15 as the minumim age to open an account and imposes new "safety-by-design" rules on tech firms providing services to minors younger than 18.

The EU KIDS Act will boost parental oversight of children between the ages of 13 and 15 with mini accounts linked to the parent or guardian's main account that would limit them to age-appropriate social media and video-sharing platforms, the European Commission said in a news release.

Services accessed via mini accounts must have safeguards built-in, including restricted ability to be contacted and contact others and a daily screen time limit of an hour maximum in recognition of "the role of guardians in supporting the autonomous and safe development of their children online," the commission said.

"Today, our children are engaging with the most sophisticated technologies ever created. Technology that was never created with their wellbeing in mind. Our KIDS Act is reversing the burden of proof -- it is for platforms to show they are safe by design. And we put parents back in the driving seat, giving them the tools to help their children navigate a safer online world," said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

Large online platforms will be required to submit a compliance plan to the commission and to an independent auditor for existing and new services, features or functionality to be evaluated and make modifications, if asked to do so.

The proposed ecosystem will require online services and app stores use tools to confirm age such as the EU age verification app with the 27 member states of the bloc "closely involved" in setting up the new regime to keep kids safe online.

The law bans addictive features and profiling-based recommender feeds "dragging minors into 'rabbit holes' of harmful content,'" infinite scroll, reward tricks and push notifications during sleeping hours and unsolicited contact for all online services that provide social media, video sharing and online video games to under-18s.

AI companions and chatbots must be turned off by default and must not interact with users in ways that develop emotional dependency.

Minors' profile must be also set to private by default with geolocation, camera and microphone off and kid-friendly tools provided for them to block and mute other users, manage their time online as well as the ability to easily control, fine-tune and reset recommender systems.

The commission said a proposal had been forwarded to the European Parliament and Council aimed at kickstarting the process of adopting the bill.

"Considering the clear demand for urgent and comprehensive action at Union level, it is essential that the act is adopted swiftly," said the commission.

• Pennsylvania is suing TikTok over 'addictive' features
• French parliament passes social media ban for young teens
• European Commission: TikTok violates safety regulations for minors
• Overnight social media curfew announced for older teens in Britain

Today's bill in Canberra could cost social media companies a whole lot of money

 

Government closes in on $100m social media fines

Shane Wright

September 6, 2026 — 10:00pm

Social media companies could be slugged with fines of more than $100 million if they fail to do more to keep under-16s off their sites under an Albanese government bill set to go before the Senate on Tuesday.

The fines are part of a push to give more power to eSafety Commission chief Julie Inman Grant to target sites such as Facebook, Instagram and TikTok for not lifting efforts to abide by Australia’s ban on young people accessing social media.

Communications Minister Anika Wells is urging all sides of politics to fast-track the government’s heavy fines on social media companies. Dominic Lorrimer

It forms a key part of a broader assault on social media platforms with draft laws that would force companies to take action that would prevent the platforming and sharing of harmful content, including illegal pornography, on their sites.

At the start of July, the government introduced to parliament an urgent bill it said would boost the eSafety Commission’s information gathering powers. That bill was sent to a Senate committee that, despite misgivings by non-government members, ticked off its approval.

Related Article

• Exclusive
• Political leadership

Hanson, Coalition ready to fight Labor’s plan to tame social media feeds

That bill, which includes fines of $109.2 million for breaching new laws to prevent under-16s from accessing social media sites, will go to the Senate on Tuesday.

The government has come under fire over the large number of young people still on social media sites, despite its mandating of age verification.

But Communications Minister Anika Wells said more than five million under-16s accounts had been removed. She urged the upper house to back the bill as quickly as possible.

“Australian kids and parents needed these laws eight weeks ago, but the Coalition and Greens teamed up to send our four-page bill to an eight-week inquiry,” she said.

“The Coalition and the Greens ignored the pleas of parents who want social media companies held to account for harming Australian kids.

“We have to put politics to the side and pass this bill this week, so the eSafety Commissioner can hold social media companies accountable.”

The large fines at the heart of the under-16 ban will form part of the so-called “digital duty of care” reforms that the government is expected to release for public comment later this week.

The proposed legislation has the potential to split the Coalition between those who want to protect free speech and those who believe some social media outlets are deliberately causing harm among young people.

Liberal leader Angus Taylor on Sunday said while he had not seen the draft laws, he was worried about an “attempt by government to censor social media”.

He was more focused on the laws going to the Senate this week, noting the continued use by under-16s of social media.

“It’s not working. So then going off and starting off on some other thing, which risks being censorship of the internet, enormous ministerial discretion around censorship on the internet … If that’s what’s being proposed, we’re sceptical,” he told News24.

Opposition communications spokeswoman Sarah Henderson expressed deep reservations about the proposal and how it would give more powers to the government to regulate Australians’ freedom of expression.

“While we will consider the government’s exposure draft, the proposal for new ministerial powers to make regulations governing categories of online harms without parliamentary oversight is a serious threat to free speech,” she said.

“While tougher action is required to combat serious online harms and empower Australians to take greater control over what they see online, the digital duty of care, as currently proposed, appears to be a dangerous step in the wrong direction.

But opposition home affairs spokesman Jonathan Duniam said there might be merit in users not being force-fed an algorithm for their social media.

“Provided the detail stacks up and it doesn’t unnecessarily impede on people’s rights and freedoms, empowering individuals to make a choice about what they consume is absolutely where we should be at,” he told the ABC’s Insiders program.

“Empowering parents to do the same for those that are in their custody, their kids, should absolutely be something we consider.”

CSA in the USA > Meta's social media harm lawsuit settled for $17bn

 

Meta reaches $17 billion settlement with US states over social media harm to teens

Americas

Meta Platforms on Wednesday agreed to pay $17 billion to settle claims, filed by 47 US states, that the company designed Facebook and Instagram to deliberately make teens addicted to their products while deceiving the public, according to state attorneys general. The company agreed to add child-safety measures as part of the settlement. 

Issued on: 26/08/2026 - 16:31

Reading tim

By:

FRANCE 24

A demonstrator holds a banner with names of young people who advocates say died because of harm from social media outside a US courthouse in Oakland, California on August 18, 2026. © Noah Berger, AP

Meta has agreed to pay $17 billion and add child-safety measures to its Facebook and Instagram platforms to end a landmark trial over teen social media addiction and settle claims filed by 47 states, state attorneys general announced Wednesday.

California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey were among 29 states that sued the tech giant in 2023, but the deal cuts short the trial, which was expected to see CEO Mark Zuckerberg take the stand before a jury in federal court in California.

The agreement is worth $353 million in Virginia alone and is one of the biggest in state consumer protection history, Attorney General Jay Jones said in a statement.

READ MOREMeta sued by US states for hooking and exploiting kids in pursuit of profit

“For years, Meta intentionally deceived the public about the addictive and harmful design features that have wreaked havoc on youth mental health," Jones said. The settlement "will put an end to these dangerous practices and deliver meaningful relief that will protect children from online harm”.

Meta did not respond immediately to a request for comment. The $17 billion settlement is a fraction of the company's 2025 revenue of $201 billion.

The lawsuit accused Meta of contributing to the youth mental health crisis by deliberately designing features that addict children to its platforms and hiding them from the public. It also argued that Meta violated federal laws by routinely collecting data on children under 13 without their parents’ consent.

The trial kicked off last week in Oakland, California, with US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers overseeing the proceedings. Adam Mosseri, the head of Instagram, began his testimony late Tuesday and defended Meta’s record and progress on child safety and privacy.

The cases in other states had been expected to go to trial later. In addition, nine attorneys general filed lawsuits in their respective states.

Under the proposed settlement, Meta agreed to adopt a series of safety features, including a “hard cap” on daily time limits and pauses for children using Instagram and Facebook.

It will eliminate push notifications during weekday school hours and bring in “robust” age-assurance measures and “age-appropriate” content controls to prevent bullying and harmful material about eating disorders and self-harm.

There will be stronger and more user-friendly parental controls and limits on social comparison features such as “like” counts.

The federal lawsuit was the result of an investigation led by a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general from California, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Vermont. It followed newspaper reports, first by The Wall Street Journal in 2021, that found that the company knew about the harm Instagram can cause teenagers – especially teen girls – when it comes to mental health and body image issues.

Meta has since added a host of safety features to Instagram, including separate accounts for teenagers with stronger protections around messaging and privacy, along with content restrictions. 

But child safety experts, along with some former Meta employees, have long contended that the features are little more than window dressing. 

READ MOREFacebook and Instagram must stop ‘addictive’ features like infinite scroll, EU tells Meta

Arturo Béjar, a former Meta engineering director, said during his testimony last week that Meta consistently prioritised profits over safety in designing its products, focusing on how often and for how long people used them, even if it was detrimental to their mental well-being.

“If you step away from the product, they are not going to make any money,” he said.

While the four states in the Oakland trial did not officially say how much they had been seeking, Meta said in a court filing that financial penalties in the case could amount to as much as $1.4 trillion – a figure legal experts said was unlikely, if not impossible. 

(FRANCE 24 with AP)

=====================================================================================

France's Stupid, irresponsible, godless courts have done it again

 

Just as the world cautiously tiptoes into the edge of the sea of filth of social media, France's courts have decided children need more freedom to find ways to get themselves raped, abused, trafficked, and convinced they are of the opposite sex. Unbelievably stupid and irresponsible!

Michael Geist

@mgeist

France's top court has struck down the country's under-15 social media ban as unconstitutional on freedom of expression and privacy grounds. The court ruled that a blanket ban was a disproportionate limit on expression and that it forces everyone, including adults, to verify their age, thereby violating privacy without legislated safeguards. These are exactly the concerns I raised in my post arguing that Canada's social media ban is unconstitutional. https://reuters.com/world/frances-top-court-rules-social-media-ban-curtails-freedom-expression-2026-08-14/

https://michaelgeist.ca/2026/07/why-the-governments-plan-for-a-social-media-ban-in-bill-c-34-is-unconstitutional/

From reuters.com

9:06 AM · Aug 14, 2026

·

14.3K

Views