Govind Tekale
France’s Constitutional Council rejected President Emmanuel Macron’s signature policy to ban social media for children under 15, ruling Friday that the law violates freedom of expression. The decision derails one of the government’s most ambitious attempts to protect young people from digital harms.
The council found the proposed ban “constitutes an infringement that is neither appropriate, necessary, nor proportionate” to the right to freedom of expression and communication. The court’s reasoning centered on a practical problem: banning minors from social media requires everyone—including adults—to prove their age online before accessing these platforms.
“By prohibiting minors under the age of fifteen from accessing certain online services, the law inherently requires every person, even an adult, to prove their age before accessing them,” the council stated. That blanket verification requirement, judges concluded, overreaches into the rights of the adult population.
The ruling marks a significant setback for Macron, who positioned the social media restrictions as a centerpiece of his digital policy agenda. The government had planned to roll out the ban in stages beginning in September 2026. Tech companies and civil liberties groups had warned for months that the policy was unworkable and dangerous.
The push for restrictions reflects a broader international concern about social media’s effect on young people’s mental health. The U.S. Surgeon General has previously warned of the risks, citing research on depression, anxiety, and sleep disruption linked to heavy social media use. Over 80 percent of the world’s population owns a mobile phone, making social platforms nearly impossible for teenagers to avoid. ITU statistics confirm that 82% of individuals aged 10 and above worldwide now own a mobile phone.
Macron responded to the court’s decision by saying he would prepare a new draft law addressing the council’s concerns. Officials did not immediately outline what changes the revised policy might include or when it would be introduced.
The constitutional council’s decision reflects the tension between two legitimate goals: shielding children from potentially harmful content and protecting the right to digital access. European courts have increasingly scrutinized age-gating systems, as seen in coverage of the EU Digital Product Passport rollout, arguing that they risk creating surveillance infrastructure that affects everyone’s privacy.
Parents and education officials have long expressed frustration with social media’s grip on adolescents. Studies show teenagers spend hours daily on platforms designed to maximize engagement, often at the expense of sleep, schoolwork, and face-to-face interaction. But solutions remain elusive.
Other countries have pursued different approaches. Some nations have banned certain platforms outright. Others have required parental consent for accounts. Australia has passed laws banning social media for anyone under 16, though implementation details remain contested, as compliance research reveals difficulties. The United Kingdom has introduced online safety regulations holding platforms accountable for child protection.
France’s failed ban now becomes a cautionary tale. The court’s decision suggests that sweeping prohibitions face legal obstacles in democracies that protect freedom of expression. Yet the underlying anxiety—that social media companies profit from youth engagement while bearing minimal responsibility for harms—continues to drive policy conversations across Europe.
The council’s ruling does not prevent France from pursuing youth protection through other means. Stricter age verification systems that respect adults’ privacy, transparency requirements forcing platforms to disclose algorithmic risks, or digital literacy programs in schools could all survive constitutional scrutiny. Whether Macron’s government pursues these narrower measures remains unclear.
For now, French teenagers retain the same unrestricted access to social media as their peers elsewhere in Europe. The question of how democracies can meaningfully protect young people online remains unresolved.
