The French Constitutional Council has ruled that legislation imposing a general prohibition on access to online social networking services for children under the age of 15 is unconstitutional, finding that the measure disproportionately interfered with freedom of expression and communication and the right to respect for private life.
The decision, Act to protect minors from the risks posed by their use of social networks (ECLI:FR:CC:2026:2026.911.DC), concerned a challenge brought by members of the French National Assembly against provisions of an Act adopted on 21 June 2004 which would, in principle, prohibit minors under 15 from accessing online social networking services.
The petitioners argued that the legislation imposed an overly broad restriction without distinguishing between different types of platforms, their functionalities, the risks they posed to children or the safeguards available. They contended that less restrictive measures could achieve the objective of protecting minors while respecting their freedom of expression and communication. They also argued that the legislation interfered with the ability of parents to determine whether access to particular services was appropriate for their children.
The Constitutional Council recognised that the legislature was pursuing legitimate constitutional objectives. The legislation was intended to protect younger children from risks associated with certain social-networking functionalities, including addiction, isolation, exposure to pornography, harassment and fraud. The Council accepted that protecting the best interests of children and preventing threats to public order could justify restrictions on minors’ access to online services.
However, the Council found that the legislation went beyond what was constitutionally permissible. While certain services, including online encyclopaedias, educational and scientific directories and platforms for developing and sharing open-source software and educational projects, were excluded from the prohibition, the exemptions remained limited. They did not cover a number of other online communication and collaborative services which might not present the same risks as traditional social-networking platforms.
The Council therefore considered that the prohibition could apply to online communication services where the risks to children arising from their content or operation had not been established. The legislation also imposed the same prohibition on every minor under the age of 15, without taking account of the individual circumstances of the child or the particular risks associated with the service concerned.
Significantly, the legislation did not provide parents or legal representatives with a mechanism to lift or limit the prohibition where, having been informed of the relevant risks and safeguards, they considered that access to a particular service was in the child's interests.
The Council held that, in light of the importance of online communication services to participation in democratic life and the expression of ideas and opinions, freedom of expression and communication encompasses a freedom to access such services. While that freedom may be restricted to protect children, the restriction must be appropriate, necessary and proportionate to the objective pursued.
The blanket nature of the prohibition failed that test. The Council concluded that the legislature could not deprive children under 15 of access to a broad range of online communication services without taking account either of the individual minor's circumstances or the specific risks presented by the services concerned.
The legislation also raised privacy concerns because enforcing an age-based prohibition would necessarily require users to establish their age before accessing affected services. The Council observed that the right to respect for private life, protected by Article 2 of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, would therefore be engaged. The legislation did not establish sufficient safeguards governing the processing of the personal information required for age verification.
The Constitutional Council consequently upheld the challenge to Article 1 of the legislation and found the contested provisions partially non-conforming with the Constitution.
The decision illustrates the constitutional difficulty of regulating children's access to social media through blanket age restrictions. While the protection of minors was accepted as a legitimate and important objective, the Council emphasised that measures restricting fundamental freedoms must be sufficiently tailored to the particular risks they seek to address.