Age and account access
Qualifying social networks and video-sharing services would have to delay independent accounts until 15. Limited arrangements for some younger users are narrower and legally distinct.
Understand the age rulesIndependent legal and policy reference
EU KIDS Act
A European Commission proposal for EU-wide rules on children’s access to certain online services, safety by design, age assurance and the responsibilities of platforms, games, AI systems and app stores.
This is a proposal, not EU law. The European Parliament and Council may amend it, and the final law may differ.
At a glance
What the proposal would change
The proposal combines account-age rules with service-design duties and a common framework for proving or assessing age. The exact duty depends on the category of service or system.
Safety by design
Specified services would face rules on compulsive use, recommendations, default settings, contacts and transactions. These provisions do not all apply to every in-scope service.
Explore safety-by-design rulesAI chatbots and companions
AI companions and general conversational chatbots accessible to minors would face tailored safety, testing and design duties. Specialised task-limited chatbots are excluded from one key definition.
See the AI requirementsOnline games
Video games and video-gaming platforms would have targeted duties on excessive use, settings, contacts, guardian tools and age-rating cooperation.
See the games rulesApp stores
Software application stores would need age-rating systems, age-appropriate access and purchasing controls, transparent methodologies and support for EU age-verification solutions.
See the app-store rulesAge assurance
The proposal distinguishes age verification from other age-assurance methods and sets privacy, data-minimisation and redress requirements.
Understand age assuranceAge rules in plain English
Not a blanket “social-media ban under 15”
Article 6 would apply to online social networking and video-sharing platform services only when the service has at least one listed risk feature—for example, open live-streaming, contact with people outside existing connections, profiling-based recommendations, unsolicited content or contact recommendations, or engagement features that can enable uninterrupted use.
On those qualifying services, a person under 15 could not create or use an account attributed to them. A guardian could choose to set up a limited account for a 13- or 14-year-old, with guardian tools always active, a daily limit of no more than one hour, and controls over new contacts.
Below 13 is different again
Article 7 creates a separate exception only for video-sharing services specifically designed for children below 13. Access would be through the guardian’s own account, subject to detailed safeguards. It could not be enabled below age 3.
Age assurance
Prove an age threshold, not necessarily an identity
The proposal defines age assurance broadly, covering methods that determine, estimate or verify age, but excluding simple self-declaration by the user. For Article 6’s account rules, providers would have to use a certified EU age-verification solution with a third-party proof-of-age attestation.
The proposal says age-assurance systems must not identify, locate, track, target, advertise to or profile the person. It also requires data minimisation and zero-knowledge proof. Other age-assurance approaches may be used for the safety-by-design and app-store duties if they meet the proposal’s standards.
Two different questions
Checking whether a person has passed an age threshold is not the same as checking whether an adult has parental responsibility for a child. Article 26 regulates the second question separately.
Compliance and enforcement
Existing EU frameworks would do much of the enforcement work
Article 34 connects supervision to the Digital Services Act for social networks, video-sharing platforms, video-gaming platforms and app stores, and to the AI Act for AI companions and general conversational chatbots. Member States would designate an authority for standalone video games. Data-protection authorities would supervise the age-assurance data rules.
The penalty route therefore depends on the provider and infringement. A single universal “6% fine” description would be misleading.
Primary sources
Official documents
Commission proposal — COM(2026) 681 final
The controlling source for claims about what the proposed Regulation would require.
EUR-Lex procedure 2026/0286(COD)
The official procedure record used for the current legislative status.
European Commission proposal package
The proposal, accompanying communication, impact analysis and Commission materials.
Selected questions
Quick answers
Is the EU KIDS Act already law?
No. As verified on 18 September 2026, it is a Commission proposal under the ordinary legislative procedure.
Would all social media be banned below 15?
No. Article 6 is limited to specified service categories with listed risk features, and it provides a limited-account route for some 13- and 14-year-olds.
Are small companies generally exempt?
No. The proposal contains a narrow micro- and small-enterprise exception for one AI post-market-monitoring duty, not a general size exemption.
Would platforms receive a user’s identity document?
Not necessarily. Article 6 verification would rely on certified third-party proof-of-age attestations, and Article 28 says age assurance must not identify the recipient.