French council rejects teen social media ban

France’s top constitutional authority struck down a proposed ban on social media access for children under 15 on Friday, blocking one of President Emmanuel Macron’s flagship child-safety measures while separately upholding a law legalising assisted dying in specific circumstances.

The Constitutional Council found that the social media provision violated the freedom of expression and communication of minors under 15. It said Article 1 of the legislation “constitutes an infringement that is neither appropriate, necessary, nor proportionate.”

The council also raised concerns about privacy and age verification. “By prohibiting minors under the age of fifteen from accessing certain online services, the law inherently requires every person, even an adult, to prove their age before accessing them,” the court said, according to Al Jazeera. “However, by failing to specify the conditions and limits under which such proof must be provided, the legislature has not established the legal safeguards necessary to ensure compliance with these requirements.”

The measure would have applied to platforms such as TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram. CBS News reported that the law had been due to take effect on Sept. 1, while Al Jazeera reported that it was supposed to come into effect in January 2027. The bill had passed parliament last month and was backed by Macron, who had thanked lawmakers in July and pledged to enforce it.

The French government promoted the restrictions as a way to shield young people from harms linked to social media, including anxiety, depression, sleep disorders and online harassment. After the ruling, the Elysee Palace said Macron had asked Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu to work “as quickly as possible” on a new “legally robust draft” that takes account of both the Constitutional Council’s decision and the European regulatory framework. The presidency said Macron remained determined to implement the reform.

Gabriel Attal, Macron’s former prime minister and a supporter of the proposal, said he was disappointed but accepted the decision. “We take note of it and respect this decision, which applies to everyone,” he wrote on social media, pledging to keep fighting what he called “a deadly poison for our children.”

Amnesty International had urged lawmakers to focus on forcing social media companies to redesign their platforms rather than imposing blanket bans. “There is no doubt that regulating platforms to protect children is an imperative of our time,” Secretary General Agnes Callamard said last month. “We commend states for taking social media harms seriously but rather than pursuing blanket bans, efforts should be on forcing platforms to abandon their reckless pursuit of profit to the detriment of human rights.”

The council did not rule on a separate provision banning mobile phone use in high schools starting Sept. 1. Students are already barred from having phones in French elementary and middle schools, CBS News reported.

In a separate decision Friday, the Constitutional Council upheld France’s assisted dying law in its entirety, while clarifying three provisions. The law allows French citizens and legal residents to request medical support to end their lives under strict conditions: they must have an incurable, life-threatening illness in an advanced or terminal phase, experience constant physical or psychological suffering that is untreatable or unbearable, and give free and informed consent.

The council clarified that pharmacists may refuse to assist under a conscience clause, private treatment centres may decline to participate if the procedure conflicts with their mission, and the views of a welfare representative must be considered for protected patients.

Elisabeth Borne, a member of parliament and former prime minister, welcomed the decision. “This decision marks the culmination of a long democratic and parliamentary effort, conducted with listening, respect, and rigour,” she wrote on X. “I welcome this definitive validation of a text that guarantees everyone the freedom to choose, within a strict and protective framework.”