A parliamentary vote, not yet a fully operative law

France’s Parliament definitively adopted the proposal on 21 July 2026 after the National Assembly and Senate approved the same compromise text. The headline description of a French “approval” is therefore broadly accurate. However, it needs an important qualification: the text has been referred twice to the Constitutional Council by groups of at least 60 deputies, on 23 and 24 July. As of 30 July, the proposal remains under constitutional review and has not been promulgated.

That distinction matters because the planned timetable is ambitious. The social-media provisions are drafted to apply from 1 September 2026 to new accounts, while platforms would have four additional months to deal with accounts created before that date. The school-device measures are intended to take effect at the beginning of the 2026–27 academic year. A Constitutional Council ruling could uphold, narrow or strike down provisions before those dates.

The legislation combines two separate but politically linked ideas: an age threshold for social networks and a broader effort to reduce smartphone use during the school day. It reflects a view shared across much of French politics that digital platforms and constant connectivity have become a child-protection and education issue, rather than solely a matter for parents and technology companies.

What the under-15 restriction would cover

The central provision would prohibit under-15s from accessing online social-networking services supplied by online platforms. The wording is deliberately broad. It covers services built around interaction, public sharing and participation in user communities, rather than naming a fixed list of companies. In practical terms, the debate has focused on major social networks such as Instagram, TikTok, Facebook and Snapchat, but the final scope will depend on how the legal definition is interpreted.

The text includes exemptions for online encyclopaedias, educational or scientific directories, and open-source software-development and project-sharing platforms with an educational purpose. These carve-outs are significant: they seek to prevent an age barrier designed for social networks from blocking access to general knowledge resources or collaborative learning tools.

The adopted version does not create penalties for children themselves. It places the restriction in the legal framework governing online services, while enforcement against platforms is closely bound up with European Union rules. Earlier versions envisaged a more nationally directed system, including a possible list of higher-risk services. That approach was dropped after concerns about compatibility with the EU’s Digital Services Act.

The result is a law that makes a clear political statement but leaves difficult operational questions. Platforms must know whether a user is below the threshold without creating a system that unnecessarily exposes everyone’s identity, age or browsing activity. Age assurance can rely on third parties or device-based approaches, but each model raises questions about privacy, reliability, accessibility and circumvention.

A national measure inside a European framework

France’s compromise was shaped by the EU’s Digital Services Act, which establishes obligations for platforms to protect minors but also creates a Europe-wide regulatory framework. The European Commission’s 2025 guidance on protecting minors encourages proportionate, risk-based safeguards, including age-assurance measures where appropriate. It is guidance rather than a simple EU-wide ban at a single age.

French legislators ultimately removed provisions that could have duplicated the role of European enforcement mechanisms. The Senate’s own account of the compromise describes the law as both an additional national measure and an impetus for wider EU action. This illustrates a core tension: France wants to move quickly on a domestic political priority, but the platforms involved operate across borders and are governed substantially through European law.

The constitutional issue is separate but equally consequential. The Council will have to assess whether a general restriction on under-15 access strikes a proportionate balance between protecting children and respecting freedoms including communication, information and family autonomy. Parliamentary material acknowledged that a blanket restriction could face constitutional difficulty. Even if the principle survives, its final legal boundaries may differ from the text approved by Parliament.

The phone measure is an extension, not France’s first school ban

The second part of the package is sometimes presented as a new ban on phones in French schools. In fact, France already restricted pupils’ use of phones and connected devices in primary schools and lower secondary schools, known as collèges, under rules introduced in 2018. The new proposal would extend that principle to lycées, France’s upper-secondary schools.

The change is therefore aimed mainly at teenagers roughly aged 15 to 18, rather than younger pupils. It also does not mean that every device will be treated identically in every setting. The approved text says each school’s internal rules should set out how the ban operates and what exceptions apply, consistently with its educational plan. Schools offering higher-education courses may set specific arrangements for their students.

That local flexibility recognises practical realities. Phones can support disability and health needs, travel arrangements, classroom activities and communication with families. Schools must also decide whether devices are stored, kept switched off, or simply prohibited during particular periods. The effectiveness of a restriction will depend less on the wording of a statute than on supervision, clear expectations and consistent implementation.

The proposal additionally requires school and institutional projects to address use of digital technology and awareness of the harms associated with excessive screen exposure and addictive social-media design. This is an important complement to prohibition: school policy can set limits, but it cannot by itself teach pupils how recommendation systems, online pressure, misinformation and commercial incentives shape digital behaviour.

A test of enforcement and policy design

France’s initiative is notable for joining online access rules with school-day device rules in one legislative response. Supporters see the two measures as mutually reinforcing: fewer social-media pressures for younger children and fewer opportunities for phones to disrupt attention, relationships and learning during the day.

Critics are likely to focus on whether a formal age ban can be enforced without intrusive identity checks, whether it will be easily bypassed, and whether it risks excluding young people from beneficial forms of communication and participation. The broad definition of a social network may also prompt disputes over borderline services, from video platforms to gaming and messaging communities.

The most accurate conclusion is that France has taken a major parliamentary step, not that the new regime is already operating. The Constitutional Council’s decision will determine whether the September timetable can proceed and whether this attempt to set a national digital age threshold becomes a durable model for France and, potentially, for the wider European debate.

Sources