Brussels is asking Austria to delay by a year the entry into force of its plan to ban social media for minors, until the European review of the regulation is complete. The Commission believes that different national rules could be difficult for platforms to apply. Vienna disputes the delay and says it wants to protect young people without waiting, while other European countries could face a similar pause.
Why the European Commission is asking for more time
Before introducing new rules for online services, member states must submit their proposals to the European Commission. This procedure allows Brussels to examine whether they are compatible with EU law and assess the possible consequences for digital services operating in several countries.
Austria sent its draft law to the Commission in July. However, the European review was not completed until after the KIDS Act was presented. According to Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier, the date on which this review period ends determines the applicable timetable, not the date on which the Austrian proposal was submitted.
Brussels believes that a succession of national rules with different age thresholds and requirements could complicate the work of platforms. If each country set its own obligations, companies would have to adapt their services to several legal frameworks. Thomas Regnier therefore argued that a set of divergent laws would, in his view, be impossible to apply consistently.
The Commission’s Executive Vice-President, Henna Virkkunen, had warned the Austrian government about this difficulty the day before. The warning therefore concerns both the project’s timeline and the potential effects of a national ban adopted before the European work is complete.
Vienna refuses to delay the protection of young people
Austria’s Vice-Chancellor Andreas Babler strongly challenged Brussels’ request. In his view, postponement is unacceptable because the law aims to protect children from the harms he associates with daily social media use. He said this protection could not be put off.
The Austrian government nevertheless intends to move its bill forward. According to the position presented by Vienna, the law would enter into force at the end of the one-year suspension period. The European request does not therefore necessarily mean abandoning the plan, but it would delay its implementation and leave the existing framework in place in the meantime.
The debate also concerns the division of powers between the states and the European Union. National governments want to take action in response to the risks associated with platforms, while the Commission stresses the need for rules that are compatible across Europe. This tension explains why national timetables may be affected by a review procedure conducted in Brussels.
Several national proposals affected by the European review
Austria is not the only country waiting for a Commission decision. Italy, Slovenia and Belgium have also submitted proposals concerning minors’ access to social media. Until the European review of these texts is complete, they too could be subject to a similar delay.
The timetables announced by the various governments therefore remain dependent on Brussels’ opinion. Each proposal must be assessed under the European procedure, even if national objectives may be similar. Differences in age thresholds, scope or enforcement mechanisms could affect how these measures would fit with common rules.
To clarify the issues concerning age thresholds and the timing of national measures, this article looks at the platforms potentially affected and the dates under consideration: which platforms would be affected by a ban on social media for under-15s, and when the measure could come into force.
Greece avoids the delay
The situation in Greece differs from that of countries whose proposals are still under review in Brussels. The Greek Parliament voted for a ban targeting under-15s, which is due to take effect on January 1, 2027. Since the European review of this law was completed before September 17, the measure is not affected by the freeze announced in Austria’s case.
This difference highlights the importance of the notification and review timetable. Two countries may want to introduce similar restrictions, but when the European procedure ends can determine whether a law can be implemented on the planned date or whether its entry into force must be delayed.
The DSA remains the framework while awaiting the KIDS Act
Asked about the situation of young Austrians during the one-year delay, Thomas Regnier referred to the Digital Services Act, or DSA. According to the spokesperson, Brussels will continue to ask platforms to protect minors under this regulation, which is already in force, while the European framework linked to the KIDS Act evolves.
The DSA thus provides the applicable framework while national proposals and European discussions proceed. It is not the same as a general age-based ban on access: the Commission refers to it instead as the regulatory foundation for certain existing obligations to protect underage users.
Platform accountability is also the subject of proceedings outside the European Union. In this regard, the report on Meta’s judgment in New Mexico, related to the protection of minors on social media, illustrates the actions brought against companies in the sector and the debates over their obligations to young people.
A possible European ban is not expected before 2028
During an exchange with an AFP journalist, the possibility of a ban applying across the European Union before 2028 was raised. The journalist said this deadline could remain a long way off even if negotiations moved forward quickly. Thomas Regnier did not dispute this estimate.
This timetable points to a period during which protections could depend both on the DSA and on national laws already adopted or in preparation. Proposals still under review in Brussels, such as those from Austria, Italy, Slovenia and Belgium, are not necessarily following the same path as texts whose review has been completed.
Debates over access to digital content and the responsibilities of online services also concern other sectors. For a separate example involving the availability of audiovisual programs, see the reasons why certain programs on France TV are blocked during the day. This issue is unrelated to plans to ban social media, but forms part of the broader context of rules governing access to digital services and content.
