How did we get there?
As we reported in our previous client alert, on 21 July 2026, the French parliament adopted legislation prohibiting children under 15 from accessing social media platforms (the Bill), following months of parliamentary debate and scrutiny from the European Commission over its interaction with EU law.
Before the legislation could enter into force, however, it faced one final hurdle: its referral to the Constitutional Council (the Council) by both the La France Insoumise and Socialist Party parliamentary groups, who argued, among other things, that Article 1 of the Bill, which carried the substantive part of the legislative initiative and sought to prohibit children under 15 from accessing social media platforms (the Prohibition Provision), was incompatible with freedom of expression and the right to privacy.
On 14 August 2026, the Council issued its decision (Decision No. 2026-911 DC). It struck down the Prohibition Provision, meaning that the measure will not enter into force as adopted. Below, we unpack the Council’s reasoning and consider what the decision means for the future of age restrictions on social media in France.
What is the rationale behind the Council’s decision?
In substance, the Council struck down the Prohibition Provision on the grounds of (i) freedom of expression and communication (Article 11 of the 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (Déclaration des droits de l’Homme et du citoyen)) and (ii) the right to privacy (Article 2 of the same Declaration).
While acknowledging that protecting children and preventing harm to public order may justify restricting minors’ access to social networking services, the Council identified three main issues:
- No distinction between the in-scope services. The Prohibition Provision applies to any platform enabling users to connect, communicate, and share content, without any condition relating to the features offered, the content available, or the actual risks posed to minors. While the Bill provides for some exceptions (i.e., online encyclopedias, educational or scientific directories, and platforms for the development and sharing of open-source software or educational digital projects), these are limited. The Council notes that the exceptions do not cover collaborative services for sharing recreational, informational, or mutual-support content, online communication applications, or online games with significant collaborative and social features, nor do they cover online social networks that, although not inherently educational, are created in connection with educational activities. The ban may therefore apply to services whose risks to the health and safety of minors have not been established.
- No consideration of a minor’s individual circumstances. The Prohibition Provision applies indiscriminately to all children under 15, without any individual assessment taking into account, in particular, the child’s age, degree of maturity, or family situation, or the nature and specific risks of the service concerned. Nor does the Prohibition Provision allow a holder of parental authority or a minor’s legal representative, once duly informed of the potential risks and safeguards associated with the relevant services, to lift or limit the prohibition, or authorise access to certain services, in the child’s best interests. The Council therefore found that such a blanket prohibition disproportionately restricts minors’ freedom of expression and communication.
- No conditions or specifications regarding age verification. By banning access for children under 15, the Prohibition Provision inherently requires every person (including adults) to prove their age before accessing these services. Yet the Bill defines neither the conditions nor the limits nor the safeguards under which such verification should take place, thereby depriving users of the legal guarantees necessary to protect their privacy.
What’s next?
Because the Prohibition Provision was struck down, the Bill cannot be promulgated in its current form. However, the Council expressly acknowledged that the objectives pursued (protecting children and preventing harm to public order) “are such as to justify the legislature limiting minors’ freedom of access to these services”. Following the decision, President Macron asked the prime minister to start work promptly on a legally robust revised proposal that would comply with both the Constitution and EU law.
While the legislation was initially expected to apply from 1 September 2026, the Council’s decision will inevitably delay its implementation. The French government is now reportedly aiming for a revised bill to be in place by spring 2027 at the latest, before the end of President Macron’s term.
However, the path forward remains narrow. Any revised proposal will need to address the constitutional shortcomings identified by the Council while also remaining within the constraints of EU law. The European Commission had already raised concerns about the Bill’s overlap with the Digital Services Act, and parliamentary debates acknowledged the limited room for manoeuvre at national level pending a broader EU initiative. Against this backdrop, it is not yet clear if the government can draft a proposal that satisfies both constitutional and EU-law requirements before the presidential election in April 2027.
Client Alert 2026-166