The Constitutional Council strikes down the ban on social media for under-15s: the article adopted by Parliament is repealed

This is a setback for one of the most emblematic measures intended to protect teenagers online. On Friday, August 14, the Constitutional Council struck down the article that would have banned access to social media for minors under 15. Adopted definitively by Parliament on July 21, the provision was declared unconstitutional and therefore cannot come into effect. Article 1 formed the core of the bill aimed at protecting minors from the risks posed by social media use. It provided for a general ban on access for those under 15 to platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and Snapchat, as well as to various services enabling user interaction, public content sharing, and participation in online communities. Certain categories, notably collaborative encyclopedias, educational or scientific directories, and free software platforms, had been excluded from the measure.

A blanket ban deemed disproportionate

The Constitutional Council does not dispute the need to protect children from certain dangers associated with social media. It acknowledges that protecting the best interests of the child and preventing breaches of public order can justify restrictions. However, the measures chosen by Parliament were deemed too broad with regard to freedom of expression and communication. The Council reiterated that this freedom, guaranteed by Article 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, now includes the right to access and express oneself on online public communication services. A restriction may be imposed, but it must be appropriate, necessary, and proportionate to the objective pursued. Yet the text prohibited access to social media for all minors under the age of 15, without sufficiently differentiating between platforms based on their functionalities, content, or the actual risks they pose to children. The measure did not take into account the minor's precise age, level of maturity, or specific circumstances. Another point raised was that the ban did not allow those with parental authority to authorize their child's access to certain social networks or to adapt the restriction to their individual situation. The Council therefore considered the safeguards surrounding the ban insufficient. According to the Council, "the infringement is not appropriate, necessary, or proportionate" to the objective pursued.

The age verification of all users is also a factor.

The decision also addresses one of the most significant practical consequences of the ban: age verification for internet users. To prevent a user under 15 from accessing a social network, it is necessary to determine their age. This means that the verification would not only concern minors: every user, including an adult, could be required to prove they have reached the required age before being able to access the service. The Constitutional Council reiterates in this regard that Article 2 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 protects the right to respect for private life. However, the adopted system led to imposing age verification on a much broader population than just the minors targeted by the ban. Above all, the text did not sufficiently define the safeguards surrounding this verification. The technical methods for age verification, the information that could be used, and the protections surrounding personal data were not precisely defined by the legislature. The Council therefore also considered the consequences of the system on users' privacy.

Parliament had, however, definitively adopted the measure.

The censorship comes less than a month after the final vote on the text. After several months of debate and an agreement between members of parliament and senators, the Senate and then the National Assembly adopted the conclusions of the joint committee on July 21. The bill was then considered definitively adopted by Parliament. The ban was to come into effect on September 1, 2026, for new accounts. For existing accounts, an additional four-month grace period had been granted. The measure, presented as one of the main mechanisms for protecting minors from social media, was therefore expected to begin taking effect as soon as the new school year began. However, the Constitutional Council was consulted after the final vote in Parliament. Its decision of August 14 now prevents Article 1 from entering into force in its adopted form.

The core of the law disappears before it comes into force.

The decision does not mean the entire law is invalidated. The censure is partial. But it affects its central measure: the general ban on social media for those under 15. The Senate itself now indicates that the text has been declared partially unconstitutional. Article 1 therefore cannot be promulgated. In practice, the nationwide ban, which was intended to prevent those under 15 from accessing Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, and other services covered by the text starting this fall, has been removed from the law. Parliament had indeed adopted the ban. But even before it came into effect, the Constitutional Council has just struck it down.