The European Commission announced plans for EU-wide restrictions on access to social media and other digital services for children under 13, following the publication of the Child Safety Online report. ICT&health Global spoke with Dr. Maria Melchior, co-chair of the report’s expert panel.
Children under 13 are especially vulnerable to social media risks, including addictive design features, algorithmic amplification of harmful content, and intensified social comparison, according to a panel of leading academics, practitioners, digital health experts, and representatives of youth and parent organizations from across Europe. The group spent four months developing its recommendations presented on July 13th.
Following Australia's introduction of a social media ban for under-16s on December 10th 2025, the panel calls on digital service providers to bear the burden of proving their platforms are safe by design. They should implement robust age-assurance systems and curb addictive design features such as infinite scrolling. The experts call for a shared framework of accountability involving parents, educators, platforms, and regulators.
Beyond the debate over social media bans, the report proposes a broader, development-based approach to children's digital engagement: no screen exposure before age two, supervised use of age-appropriate services and largely device-free primary schools for children aged 3–12, followed by gradually increasing autonomy from age 13 within platforms that are safe by default and supported by parental guidance.
“It is our duty to protect our children in the online world, just as we do in the offline world. And to do that effectively, we need a harmonized European approach,” said President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen when she received the report of the Special Panel on Child Safety Online.
Why did the panel settle on 13 as the minimum age for access to social media?
Dr. Maria Melchior: The decision was based on children's developmental stages rather than a single study. Between birth and adulthood, children undergo profound physical, psychological and social development, so the evidence has to be interpreted in that context.
The research suggests that children under 13 are generally not mature enough to navigate digital services independently or fully understand the risks they pose. When we talk about digital services, we mean more than social media alone. Certain features of video games and AI-powered applications raise similar concerns.
Early adolescence is also a crucial period for learning through real-world experiences – interacting with peers, playing sport, participating in cultural activities and developing social skills. Those experiences remain important throughout adolescence, but before the age of 13 they are particularly critical and should not be displaced by time spent on digital platforms.
The report identifies children aged 10 to 12 as particularly vulnerable. Why is this period so critical?
It is a time of profound developmental change. Children begin shifting from relying primarily on their families to seeking acceptance from their peers, making them far more sensitive to social norms, peer pressure, and external validation. At the same time, they are still learning to regulate their emotions and develop the social skills needed for healthy relationships. Those abilities are acquired through real-world interactions, which makes this stage especially important.
The scientific evidence also points in the same direction. Data from the U.S. ABCD study suggest meaningful differences in mental health outcomes between children who begin using social media at 12 and those who start at 13. That was one of the findings that strengthened our recommendation.
The age threshold also aligns with data protection rules in many European countries, where 13 is commonly regarded as the minimum age at which children can exercise a degree of autonomy over their personal data. That said, we see 13 as a minimum, not an ideal. France, for example, has adopted legislation setting the threshold at 16, and several countries are considering similar measures.
Debate continues over whether social media actually causes mental health problems. How strong is the evidence today?
The evidence linking excessive use of digital services to poorer health outcomes is very strong, although the relationship is often complex. Recent Eurobarometer data show that adolescents aged 13 to 17 spend around five hours a day on digital services during the week and about six hours on weekends. Time spent online inevitably displaces other activities that are essential for healthy development.
The first casualty is often reading, followed by physical activity. We know that greater screen time is associated with increased sedentary behavior, which increases the risk of obesity and other physical health problems. There is also evidence of negative effects on skeletal health.
Mental health is more complicated because the relationship is bidirectional. Children experiencing psychological difficulties may be more likely to spend excessive time online, while excessive use can also worsen those problems. Establishing causality therefore requires carefully designed longitudinal studies.
We already have sufficient evidence to justify preventive action, but yes, we need more long-term research to understand how different forms of online activity affect children’s health and development over time.
What have we learned from Australia's social media restrictions?
The first is that age restrictions alone are not enough. Australia's experience reinforces the need to regulate not only who can access digital services, but also how those services are designed. Features intended to maximize engagement, including those that exploit children's attention, must be addressed alongside age limits.
The European Union already has a regulatory framework for this through the Digital Services Act, which identifies harmful and addictive design practices. The challenge now is effective enforcement. Our report's central recommendation is to ensure that digital services are safe by design for children and adolescents.
The second lesson is that age verification should not be left to the platforms themselves. Current systems are inconsistent and too easily circumvented. Independent, reliable age-assurance mechanisms are essential if age-based restrictions are to be effective.
These policies should be judged over years rather than months. Early evidence from Australia suggests that social media use among young people has declined, even if many under-16s continue to access platforms. Behavioral change takes time, and any meaningful assessment will require long-term evaluation.
You said that digital services should be safe by design. But can social media companies realistically be expected to make their products less addictive? Their business model depends on maximizing users' attention and engagement.
Our recommendations are addressed to the European Commission, which now has to decide how far it wants and can go in enforcing existing legislation. The European Union is already in a stronger position than many other jurisdictions because the Digital Services Act explicitly addresses addictive and harmful design features targeting young people.
The legal framework is therefore largely in place. The real challenge is enforcement. Investigations involving companies such as Meta and TikTok demonstrate that the Commission is willing to act, but those efforts need to be systematic and consistent. That is one of the central messages of our report.
Europe's scale also gives it considerable leverage. As a market of hundreds of millions of consumers, it has the ability to influence how global technology companies design and operate their products in ways that individual countries cannot.
The broader regulatory landscape is also changing. Legal actions against major platforms in the United States, together with Australia's reforms, have shifted the debate significantly over the past year. Measures that once seemed politically unrealistic are now firmly on the policy agenda.
I do not expect companies to abandon their business models altogether. But I do believe they can be required to design products differently for children and adolescents. That is precisely what safe by design could mean.
Platforms such as Instagram have already introduced parental controls to give families more oversight of their children's online activity. Is it not enough?
It is certainly a step in the right direction, but the evidence we have so far suggests that parental controls alone are not enough. Evaluations carried out in France indicate that their impact has been limited, although I would be interested to see comparable data from other countries and from the platforms themselves.
Parents should be able to set clear limits, particularly for younger adolescents. They need simple tools to manage screen time, restrict access to certain apps and prevent devices from being used at times that are important for children's health and development.
Our report therefore recommends avoiding screens – not only social media, but also television, computer games – before school, before bedtime and, as far as possible, during family meals. Technology should make those boundaries easier to enforce.
Today, parental controls are often too complicated or inconsistent across devices. Setting automatic time limits or blocking access to certain apps should be straightforward regardless of the platform or operating system. Parents need tools that are easy to understand and easy to use.
What surprised you most while working on the report?
What stood out was how strongly many members of the panel emphasized parental education and media literacy. That may reflect the cultural diversity across Europe, but it also highlights how differently families are equipped to manage children's digital lives.
My own research focuses on social inequalities in children's mental health, and it's clear that some parents have more time, knowledge and resources to set boundaries and discuss online behavior with their children. Others face much greater challenges. Some children, for example, are growing up in care and do not have that level of day-to-day parental support.
That is why these recommendations cannot rely solely on parents. Strong, consistently enforced regulation is essential because it protects all children, especially those who are the most vulnerable.
