Report from Politico
In Brief – The French Constitutional Court has struck down the country’s new law banning social media for children under 15, a flagship priority of President Emmanuel Macron. The court ruled that the measure disproportionately infringed minors’ rights to freedom of expression and communication and failed to distinguish between different platform risks and minors’ differing vulnerabilities. The French government responded to the court setback saying that it would not abandon the effort and is targeting a revised law for spring 2027. Legal analysts said the ruling suggests that age limits in Europe may need to allow greater parental flexibility and account for individual maturity.
Context – Social media critics have argued for years that the platforms are dangerous, harmful and addictive, especially for teens. Although research data doesn’t back that up, age-based restrictions, led by Australia’s 16-year-old age limit, are taking off in countries around the world. France was a first mover in Europe, other countries have followed, and the European Commission is considering a multi-tiered regime for digital services. In the US, several states have passed laws with age-based social media regulations. Initially, most were blocked by federal judges applying “strict” First Amendment reviews. However, soon after the US Supreme Court allowed age checks for porn sites to be judged under “intermediate scrutiny”, a 5th Circuit appeals court allowed Mississippi age-based social media law to stand, and the High Court rejected an emergency appeal to block it. Justice Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion summarizing why so many age-based social media laws had been blocked and why he suspected Mississippi’s would eventually be struck down as well. Nevertheless, several court of appeals panels, including in the 11th, 9th and 6th circuits, have since allowed similar laws to stand during litigation. The issue seems destined for Supreme Court review. While the precedents backing the First Amendment rights of minors seem clear, the justices have been squirrely on internet cases.