Frequently asked questions

It is a European Commission proposal for an EU Regulation on minors’ online privacy, safety and security. It combines age-related account rules, safety-by-design duties, age assurance and enforcement. See the EU KIDS Act overview.

No. As checked on 18 September 2026, EUR-Lex records only the Commission proposal adopted on 17 September. Parliament and Council must consider the text. See current status and procedure.

No calendar application date exists yet. Draft Article 43 proposes entry into force 20 days after future Official Journal publication, general application six months later, Article 5 from entry into force, and Articles 33 and 35 after 12 months. See the proposed schedule.

Article 6 proposes 15 for independent accounts on covered social networks and video-sharing services that have at least one listed risk feature. It is not a rule for every website. See age rules.

No. The rule is limited by service category and risk features. It also allows a guardian to establish a restricted account for a 13- or 14-year-old if all conditions are met. See the qualified rule.

A guardian may create a limited account with guardian tools, a daily limit no higher than one hour, and contact controls, subject to verification and parental-responsibility checks. Providers are not required to offer this option. See the age bands.

Article 7 creates a separate optional route only for video-sharing services specifically designed for under-13s: limited access through the guardian’s own account, never a child account and never below age 3. See guardian-controlled access.

For services within Article 6, providers would have six months after the Regulation begins applying to establish whether existing account holders are under 15 and disable accounts where the holder is under 15 or age cannot be established, subject to the proposal’s distinct high-confidence provisions. See existing-account rules.

The proposal lists social networks, video-sharing platforms, app stores, online games, operating systems, AI companions and general conversational chatbots, but later duties apply differently across those categories. See the scope and applicability matrix.

Not generally. A narrow exception applies to a specified AI post-market-monitoring duty for micro and small enterprises. See scope and exemptions.

Sometimes. A service may need age assurance to distinguish adults from minors before departing from child-safe defaults. The method depends on the legal purpose; the strict Article 6 route is not used for every age decision. See age assurance and verification.

It is the proposal’s broader term for methods used to determine age, an age range or whether a threshold is met. Simple self-declaration by the user does not qualify. See definitions and methods.

Age verification is a specific proof-based form of age assurance. For Article 6 thresholds, the proposal requires a certified third-party EU solution using a certified EU proof-of-age attestation. See the two routes.

The proposal does not require that. Article 6 verification would use third-party proof-of-age attestations, while Article 28 says assurance must not identify the user and must minimise and separate data. See privacy safeguards.

Not in those words or universally. Article 9 prohibits specified practices intended, or reasonably foreseeable, to encourage compulsive or excessive use by minors; uninterrupted content-consumption design is one listed practice. Applicability varies by category. See safety by design.

Where Article 10 applies, providers would need child-safe design, protective parameters, stronger safeguards for potentially harmful content and a non-profiling option that is easy to select. See recommender-system rules.

It covers defined AI companions and general conversational chatbots accessible to minors, with exclusions for specialised task-limited systems. Embedded AI can follow modified rules. See AI chatbots and companions.

Yes, but it distinguishes video games from video-gaming platforms, including for reporting, complaints and enforcement. It does not turn Article 13 into a universal loot-box ban. See online games.

Article 16 would require age ratings for every offered app, access and purchase restrictions based on those ratings, age assessment and publication of the rating methodology. See app-store rules.

For the providers named in Article 20, tools must be accessible, age-tailored, effective, privacy-respecting and support time, settings and reporting controls. App stores have a separate Article 16 reference to guardian tools. See parents and guardians.

It depends: the DSA framework for several platforms and stores, the AI Act framework for covered AI, designated national authorities for standalone games, and GDPR authorities for relevant personal-data processing. See enforcement by provider category.

There is no single universal fine. DSA routes include turnover-based maxima; covered AI infringements can reach 6% under the proposal’s AI route where intentional or negligent; GDPR limits apply to specified data-protection breaches; Member States set standalone-game penalties within the stated framework. See penalty routes.

The proposal would complement the DSA, import definitions and use its supervisory system for specified provider categories. Existing DSA duties continue to apply independently. See compliance and enforcement.

The proposal imports AI concepts and applies the AI Act’s supervisory architecture to covered AI companions and general chatbots. The two instruments remain legally distinct. See the AI guide.

They are separate initiatives. Commission material published with the KIDS Act says the Digital Fairness Act is being prepared as a horizontal consumer-law proposal, including protection of minors as consumers; it is not part of the KIDS Act. See the independent Digital Fairness Act reference resource.