Between the protection of minors, the effectiveness of age controls and the risks to privacy, France wants to review access to social networks before the age of 15. The debate is also taking place at European level, where the technical tools are being developed to make the ban enforceable.
The promise seems simple: limit the exposure of young people to content and usage dynamics deemed harmful. Implementing it, however, requires precise trade-offs between security, freedoms and technical feasibility. The French framework, which has long remained theoretical, has been revitalized by parliamentary work and European experiments.
Against this backdrop, platforms, families and influencer professionals are all looking at the same question: what's really going to change, and at what cost, for teens' digital ecosystem?
Why France wants to ban social networking sites for under-15s
The idea of a ban on social networking for minors is based on the observation that early access to algorithmic flows exposes schoolchildren to inappropriate, sometimes massive, content that is difficult to filter. A parliamentary commission of inquiry into the psychological effects of TikTok on the youngest members of the family has thus taken a clear line: set a threshold at 15 yearsexcluding messaging of the target audience, so as not to cut off family and school communication channels.
The risks mentioned cover two complementary dimensions. On the one hand, passive exposure to violent publications, extreme rhetoric or misogynistic comments, the repetition of which establishes a sense of normalcy. On the other, active exposure: photos, videos, personal information published too early and then resurfaced later, sometimes used against the teenager in a conflict, harassment or school procedure. A well-honed strategy of influence knows how to exploit a detail; so does an ill-intentioned classmate.
To visualize what's at stake, just follow a typical case. 14-year-old "Nina" starts posting "beauty routine" content, then tries more viral formats. She receives sexualized comments, comes across extreme trends via recommendations, and starts modifying her images to "stand up" to comparison. The question then becomes: is simple digital education enough when the interface is designed to maximize screen time? This logic ties in with the warnings already discussed around filters and aesthetic standards, notably in the analysis of TikTok and beauty filters banned for minorswhich illustrates how a seemingly playful feature can have an impact on self-esteem.
The French debate also hinges on the regulation of the creative ecosystem. When sponsored content indirectly reaches a very young audience, responsibility is diluted between the brand, the influencer and the platform. The coherence of the system therefore requires a global reading of practices, as the vigilance point on influencer coachingwhich aims to limit commercial aberrations and gray areas. Final Insight: an age ban only makes sense if the content environment also becomes more demanding.
Age control, European law and privacy: the heart of implementation
The tipping point lies in the ability to verify age without turning the Internet into a permanent identification counter. On paper, this requirement already exists: when registering, platforms ask for a date of birth. In practice, however, this model is based on declarations, and thus on a level of trust that is unrealistic once a service is perceived as indispensable by a group of peers.
There are two possible ways of making the rule enforceable. The first is intrusive: requiring proof of identity, at the risk of creating a "breach" in data protection, as researchers in information and communication sciences have pointed out. The second is more proportionate: resorting to age verification which confirm a threshold (being over or under the age of 15) without disclosing full identity. This is precisely where the Cnil recalls a constant principle: any age verification implies the collection or processing of personal data, and therefore a residual risk. The question is not just "can we do it?", but "what level of data is acceptable?".
The French framework already includes a "digital majority" set at 15 years of age by a law passed in 2023, but awaiting implementation due to a lack of clear alignment with European law and the absence of a robust tool. The new element comes from an announcement by the European Commission: an experiment in several countries, including France, with age verification software for websites and social networks. The operational window is the spring following its deployment, with one decisive condition: platforms must be integrated into the systemin other words, "play the game".
This cooperation is not a foregone conclusion, as it goes right to the heart of our business models. The more fluid the access, the larger the audience, the higher the advertising revenues and engagement. To understand the friction, it's useful to look at the mechanisms already imposed on specific uses: some applications require reinforced control to launch a live stream or activate monetized options. The refusal to generalize to all accounts often reflects the fear of a slowdown in growth.
In influencing strategies, compliance becomes a campaign criterion. A consumer brand targeting families cannot ignore regulatory signals, just as it monitors restrictions on certain products. The parallel is clear with withdrawal or limitation obligations, for example on removal of alcoholic content when they pose a targeting or liability problem. Final Insight: age-control technology will only succeed if it protects privacy while being simpler than fraud.
To compare approaches and their consequences, here's a summary benchmark.
| Country | Announced threshold | Dominant modality | Voltage point |
|---|---|---|---|
| France | 15 years (excluding courier services) | EU age verification experiment | Compatibility of privacy and European law |
| Australia | 16 years old | Legal prohibition with obligations to achieve results | Practical application and workarounds |
| United Kingdom | Tighter controls | Regulations imposing strict controls | Technical load for services and sites |
| China | Minor restrictions (since 2021) | Identification by document | Highly intrusive, centralized model |
Expected impact on platforms, families and influencer marketing
A ban on social networking for minors doesn't just affect access; it also modifies behavior, offers and circumvention tactics. The most motivated teenagers will look for alternatives: accounts in a parent's name, VPNs, less regulated emerging platforms, or intensive use of messaging and "community" services that are difficult to qualify. In fact, this is the argument frequently put forward by certain players: pushing young people towards less moderated spaces. This objection deserves to be tested rather than repeated, as the risk already exists today, without a ban, as soon as content is delisted on a dominant platform.
Realistic leverage lies in a triptych: age control, safety design and educational support. Families, often caught between fear and resignation, need concrete tools: settings, rules of use, discussion of content encountered. In practice, intermediate measures can also prepare the ground, such as the principle of a digital curfew in Francewhich targets the hours of greatest vulnerability (evening, night) rather than all social time. An hourly rule is more controllable at home; an age ban is more controllable by the platform. The two can complement each other.
For platforms, the adjustment is twofold. Firstly, the obligation to prove a "reasonable" compliance effort, failing which financial penalties may be considered, as the Australian model has shown: potentially very high fines if implementation is deemed insufficient. Secondly, moderation and governance are required, as bans do not solve everything: even above the age of 15, recommendations remain a risk factor. The rhetorical question arises: what's the point of a threshold if the risk is too high?user experience designed for addiction?
In influence marketing, the transformation is immediate on the audience qualification. Advertisers will have to demand more guarantees: average age, exclusions, transparency on investments. French regulation is already making progress on these issues, notably through the law on influencers and regulation in 2025which reinforces the traceability and responsibility of sponsored operations. In concrete terms, a beauty campaign may have to prove that it does not target minors, not only through the message, but also through its settings and controls.
An example of "on-the-ground" arbitration: a skincare brand launches an activation with lifestyle designers. If the ban on under-15s becomes effective, the agency will have to favor channels where age verification is robust, adapt the creative to avoid any implicit appeal to middle-schoolers, and impose contractual safeguards. Final Insight: regulatory constraints become a strategic variable, not a legal detail.
To activate these changes without losing performance, ValueYourNetwork provides an operational framework: compliance, selection profiles and control content. An influencer marketing expert since 2016, ValueYourNetwork relies on hundreds of successful campaigns on social networks and a solid methodology for connecting influencers and brands, even in a more stringent regulatory context. To secure a strategy and align performance, brand image and public protection, simply go to the contact page: contact us.
This video selection helps you understand the French and European positions on age verification, as well as the challenges of implementation on the platform side.
This second content enables us to situate the Australian model, its obligations for the departments concerned, and the practical difficulties of implementation in the field.