Social media platforms have fundamentally transformed the concept of the environment in which children grow and develop. The digital sphere is no longer merely a means of communication or entertainment; rather, it has become one of the most influential environments shaping children's personalities, forming their awareness, directing their interests, and even affecting their psychological and social well-being. At the same time, international studies have revealed an increasing range of risks associated with the unregulated use of these platforms, including exposure to harmful content, online exploitation, digital addiction, and algorithmic systems specifically targeting children as a particularly vulnerable group.
In response to these challenges, legislative policy has undergone a significant transformation in recent years. The principal question is no longer whether children's access to social media platforms should be regulated, but rather which legal mechanisms are most effective in achieving such regulation without infringing fundamental rights or impeding technological innovation.
The decision under consideration forms part of this modern legislative trend. It presents an advanced model of digital governance for children based upon the distribution of responsibilities among the State, digital platforms, and families, while relying upon integrated legal and technological mechanisms to ensure children's safety within the digital environment.
Perhaps the most significant feature of the decision is that it departs from the traditional model, under which children's use of social media platforms was left either to parental discretion or to the policies adopted by private companies. Instead, it establishes a mandatory legal rule prescribing a minimum age of fifteen years for access.
The significance of this provision lies not merely in prescribing a specific age threshold, but in the legal philosophy underpinning it. The legislature has treated the protection of children within the digital environment as a matter of public policy (ordre public), rendering any agreement to the contrary legally ineffective. This explains why parental consent is not recognized as an exception to the prohibition.
This approach differs from many traditional legislative frameworks, which regarded parental consent as the principal basis for the lawful use of digital services by children. By contrast, the decision adopts a more contemporary approach, recognizing that certain digital risks exceed the capacity of families alone to assess or effectively manage, thereby necessitating direct legislative intervention.
The decision does not merely prohibit children under the age of fifteen from using social media platforms. It also requires platform operators to redesign their digital environments to ensure that they are appropriate for different age groups.
This is reflected in requirements to impose content restrictions, limit interactions with strangers, regulate usage periods, provide parental control mechanisms, and disable high-risk functionalities, particularly intensive algorithmic recommendation systems, live-streaming features, and unrestricted messaging services.
These provisions constitute a practical application of the principle of Safety by Design, which has become one of the foundational principles of contemporary digital regulation. This principle is based upon the premise that digital products should be inherently safe by design, rather than placing upon users the burden of avoiding harm only after risks have materialized.
Accordingly, the decision transfers the legal responsibility for protection from the user to the service provider, reflecting a significant evolution in the concept of the legal responsibility of digital platforms.
Age-verification mechanisms represent one of the most controversial issues in contemporary digital regulation, owing to the delicate balance that must be maintained between preventing circumvention on the one hand and safeguarding privacy on the other.
The decision addresses this issue through a balanced regulatory approach. It rejects reliance upon self-declared age while permitting the use of digital identity systems, biometric verification, artificial intelligence technologies, and licensed age-verification service providers. At the same time, it requires platforms to comply with the principles of data minimization, purpose limitation, and storage limitation, ensuring that personal data are retained only to the extent strictly necessary.
This balanced approach is consistent with the established principles of personal data protection legislation and confirms that enhancing children's online safety should not become a justification for excessive data collection or unjustified interference with individual privacy.
Shared Responsibility in Digital Governance
One of the principal strengths of the decision is that it does not assign responsibility to a single stakeholder. Instead, it establishes a comprehensive framework of shared accountability.
Digital platforms are legally required to implement effective age-verification systems, suspend non-compliant accounts, prevent circumvention of regulatory safeguards, conduct periodic risk assessments, and refrain from delivering behavioural tracking-based advertising directed at children.
Correspondingly, persons responsible for the care of children are prohibited from circumventing the applicable legal safeguards and are required to exercise effective supervision and provide ongoing guidance and awareness. Regulatory oversight powers are distributed between the National Media Office and the Telecommunications and Digital Government Regulatory Authority, while the Child Digital Wellbeing Council is entrusted with a strategic role in assessing digital risks and developing technical standards.
This institutional framework reflects a transition from traditional regulatory oversight toward a model of multi-stakeholder digital governance, now recognized as a defining characteristic of modern digital legislation.
The provisions of the decision intersect with several leading international legislative instruments. Nevertheless, the decision does not merely replicate these models; in certain respects, it provides a more precise and comprehensive regulatory framework.
The European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA) focuses on the obligations of very large online platforms to protect minors, prohibits behavioural profiling-based advertising directed at children, and imposes extensive obligations concerning risk management and transparency. However, it does not prescribe a uniform minimum age for access to social media platforms, leaving that issue to the national laws of Member States.
Similarly, the United Kingdom's Online Safety Act 2023 requires platforms to undertake continuous risk assessments, implement effective measures to protect children from harmful content, and subjects service providers to a statutory duty of care enforced through broad regulatory powers and sanctions.
In the United States, the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act reinforces the principle that digital services should be designed in accordance with the best interests of the child. It requires businesses to assess the impact of their products on children, minimize data collection, and apply the highest privacy settings by default.
The decision under consideration combines many of the strengths of these legislative models. It adopts the principle of Safety by Design, mandates age verification, establishes comprehensive data protection safeguards, grants effective supervisory powers to regulatory authorities, and, importantly, specifies a clear statutory minimum age. Consequently, it offers a greater degree of legal certainty than several comparable legislative frameworks.
The decision represents far more than a regulatory framework governing children's use of social media platforms. Rather, it reflects a broader transformation in the philosophy of digital legislation itself. Instead of merely addressing harm after it occurs, the decision adopts a preventive regulatory approach by requiring the creation of a safe digital environment from the design stage onward, while distributing legal responsibilities among digital platforms, families, and regulatory authorities.
This model is likely to contribute significantly to the development of the concept of children's digital governance within Arab legal scholarship and to serve as an important reference point for future legislative initiatives. By combining the latest international regulatory developments with the particular characteristics of the national legal framework, it provides a sophisticated and coherent model for child protection in the digital age. Given the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence and predictive algorithmic technologies, this decision is unlikely to represent the culmination of digital regulation; rather, it marks the beginning of a new phase in which legal rules governing children's digital protection will continue to evolve, ensuring that technological innovation remains a servant of human rights rather than a competitor to them.
Note: This Legal Update / Newsletter is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. It is based on laws and legal interpretations in effect as of the date of publication. Laws and regulations may change over time, and their application can vary depending on individual circumstances. Readers are strongly encouraged to seek specific legal counsel before acting on any of the information provided herein.
In response to these challenges, legislative policy has undergone a significant transformation in recent years. The principal question is no longer whether children's access to social media platforms should be regulated, but rather which legal mechanisms are most effective in achieving such regulation without infringing fundamental rights or impeding technological innovation.
The decision under consideration forms part of this modern legislative trend. It presents an advanced model of digital governance for children based upon the distribution of responsibilities among the State, digital platforms, and families, while relying upon integrated legal and technological mechanisms to ensure children's safety within the digital environment.
From Freedom of Access to Age-Based Regulation
Perhaps the most significant feature of the decision is that it departs from the traditional model, under which children's use of social media platforms was left either to parental discretion or to the policies adopted by private companies. Instead, it establishes a mandatory legal rule prescribing a minimum age of fifteen years for access.The significance of this provision lies not merely in prescribing a specific age threshold, but in the legal philosophy underpinning it. The legislature has treated the protection of children within the digital environment as a matter of public policy (ordre public), rendering any agreement to the contrary legally ineffective. This explains why parental consent is not recognized as an exception to the prohibition.
This approach differs from many traditional legislative frameworks, which regarded parental consent as the principal basis for the lawful use of digital services by children. By contrast, the decision adopts a more contemporary approach, recognizing that certain digital risks exceed the capacity of families alone to assess or effectively manage, thereby necessitating direct legislative intervention.
Digital Safety by Design: A Fundamental Shift in Regulatory Philosophy
The decision does not merely prohibit children under the age of fifteen from using social media platforms. It also requires platform operators to redesign their digital environments to ensure that they are appropriate for different age groups.This is reflected in requirements to impose content restrictions, limit interactions with strangers, regulate usage periods, provide parental control mechanisms, and disable high-risk functionalities, particularly intensive algorithmic recommendation systems, live-streaming features, and unrestricted messaging services.
These provisions constitute a practical application of the principle of Safety by Design, which has become one of the foundational principles of contemporary digital regulation. This principle is based upon the premise that digital products should be inherently safe by design, rather than placing upon users the burden of avoiding harm only after risks have materialized.
Accordingly, the decision transfers the legal responsibility for protection from the user to the service provider, reflecting a significant evolution in the concept of the legal responsibility of digital platforms.
Age Verification: Balancing Technological Effectiveness and Privacy Protection
Age-verification mechanisms represent one of the most controversial issues in contemporary digital regulation, owing to the delicate balance that must be maintained between preventing circumvention on the one hand and safeguarding privacy on the other.The decision addresses this issue through a balanced regulatory approach. It rejects reliance upon self-declared age while permitting the use of digital identity systems, biometric verification, artificial intelligence technologies, and licensed age-verification service providers. At the same time, it requires platforms to comply with the principles of data minimization, purpose limitation, and storage limitation, ensuring that personal data are retained only to the extent strictly necessary.
This balanced approach is consistent with the established principles of personal data protection legislation and confirms that enhancing children's online safety should not become a justification for excessive data collection or unjustified interference with individual privacy.
Shared Responsibility in Digital Governance
One of the principal strengths of the decision is that it does not assign responsibility to a single stakeholder. Instead, it establishes a comprehensive framework of shared accountability.
Digital platforms are legally required to implement effective age-verification systems, suspend non-compliant accounts, prevent circumvention of regulatory safeguards, conduct periodic risk assessments, and refrain from delivering behavioural tracking-based advertising directed at children.
Correspondingly, persons responsible for the care of children are prohibited from circumventing the applicable legal safeguards and are required to exercise effective supervision and provide ongoing guidance and awareness. Regulatory oversight powers are distributed between the National Media Office and the Telecommunications and Digital Government Regulatory Authority, while the Child Digital Wellbeing Council is entrusted with a strategic role in assessing digital risks and developing technical standards.
This institutional framework reflects a transition from traditional regulatory oversight toward a model of multi-stakeholder digital governance, now recognized as a defining characteristic of modern digital legislation.
A Comparative Perspective: Alignment with International Legislative Developments
The provisions of the decision intersect with several leading international legislative instruments. Nevertheless, the decision does not merely replicate these models; in certain respects, it provides a more precise and comprehensive regulatory framework.The European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA) focuses on the obligations of very large online platforms to protect minors, prohibits behavioural profiling-based advertising directed at children, and imposes extensive obligations concerning risk management and transparency. However, it does not prescribe a uniform minimum age for access to social media platforms, leaving that issue to the national laws of Member States.
Similarly, the United Kingdom's Online Safety Act 2023 requires platforms to undertake continuous risk assessments, implement effective measures to protect children from harmful content, and subjects service providers to a statutory duty of care enforced through broad regulatory powers and sanctions.
In the United States, the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act reinforces the principle that digital services should be designed in accordance with the best interests of the child. It requires businesses to assess the impact of their products on children, minimize data collection, and apply the highest privacy settings by default.
The decision under consideration combines many of the strengths of these legislative models. It adopts the principle of Safety by Design, mandates age verification, establishes comprehensive data protection safeguards, grants effective supervisory powers to regulatory authorities, and, importantly, specifies a clear statutory minimum age. Consequently, it offers a greater degree of legal certainty than several comparable legislative frameworks.
Conclusion
The decision represents far more than a regulatory framework governing children's use of social media platforms. Rather, it reflects a broader transformation in the philosophy of digital legislation itself. Instead of merely addressing harm after it occurs, the decision adopts a preventive regulatory approach by requiring the creation of a safe digital environment from the design stage onward, while distributing legal responsibilities among digital platforms, families, and regulatory authorities.This model is likely to contribute significantly to the development of the concept of children's digital governance within Arab legal scholarship and to serve as an important reference point for future legislative initiatives. By combining the latest international regulatory developments with the particular characteristics of the national legal framework, it provides a sophisticated and coherent model for child protection in the digital age. Given the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence and predictive algorithmic technologies, this decision is unlikely to represent the culmination of digital regulation; rather, it marks the beginning of a new phase in which legal rules governing children's digital protection will continue to evolve, ensuring that technological innovation remains a servant of human rights rather than a competitor to them.
Note: This Legal Update / Newsletter is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. It is based on laws and legal interpretations in effect as of the date of publication. Laws and regulations may change over time, and their application can vary depending on individual circumstances. Readers are strongly encouraged to seek specific legal counsel before acting on any of the information provided herein.