The French Constitutional Council declared unconstitutional the provision that would have prohibited minors under 15 from accessing major social networks, judging the measure harmful to freedom of expression. The decision is a significant setback for President Emmanuel Macron, who had placed the reform at the centre of his initiative for the “protection of children online.” The Élysée announced that the president has tasked Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu with redrafting the text to address the Court's concerns.
The contested provision, which was due to take effect on 1 September, would have required online platform operators to prevent access to accounts of users under 15, extending age checks and sanctions. The Constitutional Council found that a general access ban was disproportionate to the stated objective of protecting minors and that it unduly affected fundamental rights, particularly freedom of expression and information.
In its reasoning, reiterated in the published decisions, the constitutional judges emphasised that such a broad measure did not sufficiently account for the plurality of individual situations nor propose less restrictive alternatives. The measure would have forced international platforms — from TikTok to Instagram, as well as YouTube and Facebook — to implement age-verification systems with extensive impacts on privacy and the flow of information.
The Élysée described the decision as “a step backwards” from the president’s political intent to strengthen minors’ protection in the digital world. Official sources cited by the presidential office say Macron remains determined to secure a reform before the next electoral cycle and that the government will work on a new formulation that can meet constitutional constraints. No details were given on the revised text or timelines for its submission.
The central issue remains the balance between protecting minors and safeguarding fundamental freedoms. Supporters of the ban stressed the urgency of curbing early involvement of children in social media dynamics, pointing to risks of addiction, exposure to inappropriate content and cyberbullying. Critics, while invoking protection of freedom of expression, noted the technical and practical difficulties of mass age verification without creating new forms of digital surveillance.
A recurring point in the debate concerns methods for determining age: systems based on identity documents, biometric techniques or inference algorithms would pose risks to personal data protection and could be easily circumvented. Some experts also point out that checks could discriminate against young people without digital documents or with limited access to certain tools, exacerbating inequalities in access to information and online services.
Practically, the Constitutional Council’s annulment casts doubt on the entry into force of the sanctions foreseen for platforms that failed to comply with the requirement. Industry companies, particularly large U.S. and Chinese platforms, had prepared to modify their registration and content-moderation processes, but the judicial ruling now requires a revision of the planned technical and economic measures. Any retroactive effects on adjustments already initiated remain to be clarified.
The decision also has clear political significance. It comes at a time when the debate over young people's use of social networks is central to the public agenda and electoral programmes. For Macron, who sought to demonstrate concrete action on social protection and digital security, the annulment is a reputational problem and will require a new communication strategy to show the ability to act without infringing constitutional rights.
Open questions also remain on the international level: restrictive national policies face practical limits when applied to global platforms. Differing jurisdictions, privacy rules such as the European regulation and the need for cross-border cooperation complicate the development of uniform and effective measures. Observers say the solution may lie in more targeted rules, educational campaigns and specific moderation obligations rather than blanket bans.
Platform reactions are not yet detailed in the official communications available: many companies have previously expressed willingness to cooperate on child-protection tools but have also highlighted the technical and legal limits of mandatory age identification measures. Digital rights organisations welcomed the ruling, stressing the need to balance protection and freedom, while child-protection groups urged the government not to abandon the goal of strengthening safeguards.
In the absence of a new text filed and published, uncertainty remains over the timing and content of the Élysée’s redrafting. According to official communications, the government plans to resume legislative work in light of the Constitutional Council’s observations, but concrete instruments — from defining reasonable age limits to verification techniques compatible with privacy — will require technical and political discussion. Until details are known, the practical measure remains suspended and the public debate over the relationship between child protection and freedom in the digital world will continue to animate the French political scene.