KIDS Act: Do Europeans support banning social media for children?

EU debate grows over tighter social media rules for children

Usagevpn.com – European institutions are considering a new approach to children’s use of social media, with the proposed KIDS Act setting out stricter age-based limits for online platforms. The proposal would prevent children under 13 from using social media, while users aged 13 to 15 could face significant restrictions on how accounts are created and managed.

The plan is intended to address several concerns at once: compulsive phone use, endless scrolling, exposure to damaging material, unwanted contact with adults, and risks to young people’s mental and physical wellbeing. It also reflects a wider political push to make digital services safer by design rather than leaving children and families to navigate platform risks alone.

Broad support for stronger intervention

Public concern is evident across the European Union. In the Eurobarometer survey EU Challenges and Priorities, 91% of respondents said additional action is needed to regulate children’s use of social media.

An age-based ban received the greatest support among the measures presented, backed by 36% of those surveyed. Greece recorded the strongest endorsement, with 49% supporting a prohibition for children below a defined age. Bulgaria, Romania, Portugal, Ireland and Slovakia each registered support of 44%.

Support was less pronounced in several central European countries. Austria had the lowest share, at 27%, followed by Germany at 28% and the Czech Republic at 29%.

The variation illustrates the challenge facing EU policymakers. While there is a broad appetite for greater protection, Europeans do not appear to agree fully on whether outright age restrictions should be the main solution or how far regulation should reach into family decisions and young people’s digital lives.

How access could work for teenagers

The KIDS Act would not treat every young person in the same way. Children under 13 could be excluded from social media entirely. For those aged 13 to 15, access would not be fully independent under the current framework outlined for the proposal.

A parent would need to begin and verify the account creation process. The teenager’s profile would then be connected to a parental account or administrative dashboard. That arrangement could allow parents to control settings including time spent on the service, with daily screen time capped at one hour.

Such a model places parents at the centre of account access. It may offer families a clearer set of controls, but it also raises practical questions about whether safety protections should rely primarily on parental oversight or be embedded directly into the platforms children use.

The proposed minimum age of 13 is not entirely new territory for online services. Many major platforms already set 13 as the stated threshold for account holders. The age also aligns with standards referred to in Article 8 of the General Data Protection Regulation, which deals with consent for certain online services involving children.

Children’s rights groups seek stronger platform responsibility

Child rights organisations have welcomed the effort to tackle online harms, though some have urged lawmakers to strengthen the proposal before it becomes legislation. Their concern is that a system focused heavily on parental authorisation could transfer too much responsibility from technology companies to families.

“We back 13 as the minimum age, but we don’t see it as a new ban,” Jeanne-Marie Quashie, EU advocacy officer at Terre des Hommes Netherlands, told Europe in Motion.

Quashie noted that platforms already use 13 as their minimum access age and argued that the proposal needs a more robust approach for people aged 13 and 14.

“The EU KIDS Act is moving in the right direction by targeting platform design over blanket bans”, Quashie said. “But making access depend on a parent’s sign-up shifts the burden from tech companies onto families.”

Her position focuses on the way services are built. Features that encourage prolonged use or make harmful interactions easier should be addressed at the platform level, rather than being managed only through household settings and parental controls.

“For 13- to 15-year-olds, safety must be built in, not switched on,” she added. “Children’s access to online spaces must be conditional on safety, not parental authorisation.”

Other concerns remain alongside the debate over age limits. Restricting access may reduce exposure to some risks, but child rights groups have warned that teenagers could instead migrate to less visible and potentially more dangerous online communities. That possibility highlights why rules aimed at protecting young users may need to be combined with safer mainstream digital spaces.

Bullying, grooming and harmful content remain major fears

Across the EU, the most serious worries relate to direct harms faced by children online. Some 71% of respondents were very or somewhat concerned about cyberbullying. Concern about online grooming stood at 70%, while 69% expressed concern about young people encountering harmful content.

Worries about addictive design were slightly lower, although still substantial. Sixty per cent said they were very or somewhat concerned about features that can encourage excessive engagement. Only 28% described themselves as very concerned.

Cyprus and Luxembourg were notable exceptions. In Cyprus, 89% of respondents voiced concern about addictive design, while the figure reached 87% in Luxembourg.

The KIDS Act debate is therefore likely to extend beyond the question of whether children should be allowed to open an account. It also concerns who is responsible for ensuring that online spaces are age-appropriate, how platforms should limit harmful design choices, and whether families can realistically be expected to carry the main burden of digital supervision.