Skip to main content

France becomes first EU country to ban social media for kids under 15

▶ Watch Video: France passes law banning some social media apps for kids under 15

France has become the first country in the European Union to ban social media for children under the age of 15, after its parliament overwhelmingly approved landmark legislation by 279 votes to 81.

Under the new law, children under 15 will be prevented from creating new social media accounts on platforms such as TikTok and Snapchat from September, while existing accounts will be blocked from January 2027, according to the legislation. 

The law will also ban students from having phones in high schools from next year, and require social platforms to introduce age verification checks. Students were already prohibited from having phones in French elementary and middle schools. 

“France is leading the way in Europe when it comes to protecting our children and teenagers,” President Emmanuel Macron said, hailing the legislation’s passage as a landmark moment. 

Earlier this year, France’s public health watchdog concluded that social media had harmful effects on teenagers’ mental health, especially girls.

FRANCE-SOCIETY-ADDICTION-SMARTPHONE-YOUTH-SCHOOL
Teenage girls look at their phones in front of their school in Valence, France, on July 7, 2026.

Nicolas Guyonnet/Hans Lucas/AFP/Getty

Macron has made online child safety a defining issue of the final years of his presidency, and the ban will likely be one of the last major domestic reforms he ushers through. Macron will mark a decade in office next year, and he cannot run again in April’s national election as, like the U.S., France has a two consecutive term limit for its presidents.

Will it work?

Critics argue that the biggest challenge will be enforcement. Many question whether age-verification technology is robust enough to prevent children from accessing social media. 

Some teens may bypass the restrictions by using VPNs, fake dates of birth or accounts created by older friends or family members.

Privacy campaigners have also warned that stronger age checks may require users to hand over more personal information, while others argue the ban could simply push young people toward less regulated platforms rather than reducing the amount of time they spend online. 

“The global rollout of social media bans represents a serious threat to the freedom and privacy of millions of internet users across the world. Requiring users to upload sensitive ID or biometric information to access social media does not keep children safe, but does introduce serious cybersecurity and privacy risks for all users of all ages,” Maya Thomas, a legal and policy officer at the British organization Big Brother Watch, told CBS News.

“We have already seen in Australia that a social media ban can easily be circumvented, with some children even bypassing age gates by drawing on fake moustaches. Governments wishing to tackle the harmful business practices of social media companies must do so by regulating the companies directly, not by imposing restrictions upon their users,” Thomas said.

Australia’s experience has fueled concerns about the practicality of blanket bans.

Australia became the first country to impose such a measure when it banned under-16s from social media at the end of 2025. But around 70% of parents polled by Australia’s internet regulator in March said their children remained on the platforms, having found ways to bypass age-gating systems.

The French legislation includes exemptions for educational platforms and online encyclopedias.

Wider trends and “digital sovereignty”

The social media ban aligns with a wider push by France under Macron, along with some EU partners, for “digital sovereignty.” The idea is that Europe should become less dependent on American and Chinese technology companies, while taking a tougher regulatory approach to the digital economy and encouraging European alternatives.

In January, Macron said in a post on X that French “children’s brains are not for sale. Neither to American platforms nor to Chinese networks.”

The strategy extends beyond social media. France and Germany recently announced plans to develop an alternative to military software supplied by the U.S. firm Palantir, while France’s domestic intelligence service ended its contract with the American tech firm earlier this year.

And while France is the first EU member state to introduce such a ban, it is unlikely to be the last.

“It is clear we need age-appropriate restrictions to platforms,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said last week.

Last month, the U.K. also announced plans to introduce a ban on social media accounts for under-16s from January 2027.

But looming bans aside, the parliamentary vote makes France just the second country in the world to introduce a nationwide social media ban for children, following Australia. 

As more than a dozen other countries, including Canada, Denmark and Malaysia, weigh up their own legislation to restrict children’s access to social media, France may provide another early test case, with governments across the world watching closely to see if the outright ban can achieve its intended aims.

Judge in Don Lemon indictment asks to see grand jury records, adding to growing scrutiny of Justice Department cases

By CNN
(CNN) — A federal judge in Minnesota will probe this week whether grounds exist to toss the Justice Department’s case against journalist Don Lemon. It’s the latest example of judges’ growing skepticism of whether the department is behaving ethically behind closed doors in grand jury proceedings.Judges across the country have signaled they are willing to give far less deference to federal prosecutors than in previous administrations and have raised concerns about DOJ’s apparent abandonment of regular practices.Federal judges in Wyoming, Illinois and Virginia have either thrown out charges or seriously admonished federal prosecutors for missteps in front of the grand jury. The botched grand jury presentments have prompted a historical review of cases in Chicago and, in some courts, new rules requiring defendants to be notified when a grand jury declines to indict.On August 18, Minnesota federal Judge Laura Provinzino issued a short but extraordinary order demanding the Justice Department provide her a wide swath of grand jury materials related to Lemon and his co-defendants, including presentations made by prosecutors and case agents, and the totality of communications prosecutors had with grand jurors resulting in their indictments.Provinzino set a Tuesday deadline to provide her with the presentation by federal prosecutors and case agents related to grand juries empaneled in January and February. Further, Provinzino told DOJ to provide any introduction, legal instructions, witness testimony, closing arguments, and answers to questions from grand jurors.Lemon’s team has aggressively pursued obtaining grand jury materials and had asked for either grand jury records to be provided to the defense or, at a minimum, reviewed by the judge privately, citing “irregularities” in the grand jury that resulted in his indictment.“There is substantial evidence of grand-jury irregularities in this case,” Lemon’s team wrote in a recent filing.“Multiple judges, including at the Eighth Circuit, found there was no probable cause to charge Lemon” and his co-defendant Georgia Fort, the filing said.Mark Wolf, a former Massachusetts District Court judge and federal prosecutor, said it is rare for defense attorneys to ask for grand jury transcripts in federal court. It is even more rare that judges grant the motions, he said.“There is a high bar to getting grand jury materials,” Wolf said. “You have to have some direct or circumstantial evidence that there has been some defect in the grand jury proceeding.”In her two-page order, Provinzino wrote that she weighed the necessity of maintaining grand jury secrecy against whether grounds may exist to dismiss the case due to a “matter that occurred before the grand jury.”She did not say she had already found evidence of any misconduct.The Justice Department’s initial attempt to charge Lemon in January for appearing alongside protestors who disrupted a church service in St. Paul, Minnesota, was rejected by a federal magistrate judge, which “enraged” then Attorney General Pam Bondi, according to a source who spoke to CNN at the time.Lemon, a former CNN anchor, was later indicted by a grand jury along with several other defendants, including independent journalist Georgia Fort. Lemon has been charged with conspiring to violate someone’s constitutional rights and violating the FACE Act, which prohibits the use of force or threats to intentionally interfere with someone expressing their First Amendment right to practice religion.Lemon has pleaded not guilty to both charges. His team has aggressively pursued obtaining grand jury materials throughout the case, and earlier this month filed a motion to dismiss the case altogether.Justice Department losing credibilityWolf told CNN he does not believe the Justice Department’s credibility remains intact.“For good reasons, the Department of Justice’s reputation with judges generally has been injured,” Wolf said.In Chicago, defense attorneys urged Judge April Perry to release grand jury transcripts in the highly publicized case against protestors at an ICE detention facility outside the city.After reviewing those transcripts, Perry found federal prosecutors engaged in inappropriate actions, such as interacting with grand jurors outside the proceeding, ordering some jurors to leave in another hearing, and “vouching” to the grand jurors.Vouching is a practice where prosecutors present their own reputation while delivering their case to a grand jury. It is forbidden in grand jury proceedings because the practice effectively asks jurors to trust the prosecutor personally rather than only on the merits of evidence.“I have never seen the types of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury that I saw in those transcripts,” Judge Perry said during a May 21 hearing.US Attorney Andrew Boutros then dropped the case against the protestors. Later, after reviewing the prosecutor’s conduct, Boutros opted to drop at least two more criminal cases, ordered a historical review of more than 100 grand jury transcripts, and launched reforms such as more training on grand jury presentations.“If I was a federal public defender or a private defense attorney, every case I get that’s indicted, I’m going to file a motion that is asking the judge to review the transcripts,” said Mike Fox, a current Cato Institute fellow and former Colorado public defender.“In my view, at this point, it doesn’t matter in which court it is, doesn’t matter if I have binding case law,” Fox said. “Every single case, the defense attorney should be filing, and the judge should be inquiring.”In May, a panel of three federal judges in Wyoming dismissed felony drug and gun indictments against nine defendants after the judges found the acting Wyoming US Attorney referred to defendants as “bad guys,” and “murderers,” and handed out business cards to jurors outside of the proceeding.Prosecutors opted not to appeal the judges’ order. Later, Wyoming federal prosecutors empaneled a new grand jury which issued a new indictment. The case remains ongoing.Fox believes the remedy is a more engaged judiciary where judges routinely witness grand jury proceedings.The current law doesn’t require judges to listen to proceedings, but some courts are issuing new local rules to ensure greater oversight. This spring, the Northern District of Illinois, where Boutros is US Attorney, enacted a rule requiring grand juries to alert a magistrate judge when a grand jury fails to issue an indictment.A spokesperson for the Justice Department told CNN in an email the executive office of the US Attorney provides training for prosecutors which includes grand jury practice.“On rare occasions where there is an issue, as noted in our Chicago US Attorney’s office, we took immediate corrective action and provided renewed, in-depth instruction on ethics and grand jury practice,” the spokesperson wrote.“Our US Attorneys will always follow the law and prosecute cases without fear or favor. Nobody is above the law, regardless of political affiliation. Beyond that, we don’t comment on pending litigation.”Grand jury presentments in the spotlight last yearLast fall, in the most high-profile and politically charged example of a problematic grand jury presentment, then-interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Lindsey Halligan, took a proposed indictment against former FBI Director James Comey through a grand jury on her own. A magistrate judge in Alexandria, Virginia, reviewed the transcript and found Halligan may have incorrectly presented the law to the grand jury. The judge called the debacle “profound investigative missteps … to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding.”Halligan later admitted to a judge the grand jury hadn’t supported the initial version of the proposed indictment of Comey, and the full grand jury hadn’t signed off on the final charging document. That Comey case was dismissed for a separate reason, when a federal district judge determined Halligan wasn’t serving as a legitimate prosecutor. The Justice Department is appealing.But the grand jury handling in the Comey case and other cases continues to hover over prosecutors.Comey’s defense team, for instance, is attempting to pry into grand jury records in the separate, newer case against him, out of Eastern North Carolina. He is charged there with threatening the president by posting on social media a photo of the numbers “8647” written in seashells on a beach.The phrase 86 is sometimes used to say nix or get rid of something. Trump is the 47th president. Comey has denied wrongdoing in the case.“The highly irregular procedures that led to the indictment create a significant risk that the government misrepresented key issues of fact and law to the grand jury,” Comey’s lawyers wrote in a recent court filing, citing federal searches of Comey that they question.If Comey’s defense cannot gain access to the grand jury transcript, they at least want a judge to look at it to check the Justice Department’s work.Wolf said he is deeply troubled by the Justice Department’s recent actions and told CNN he believes it shows the American people that the department will use the law for partisan purposes.“It sends a message that a Department of Justice that should institutionalize our ideal of equal justice under law is not doing that,” Wolf said. “And that means anybody is vulnerable.”The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story

Related Stories

Latest News
A medida que se acercan las elecciones, Netanyahu presenta a Turquía como el nuevo enemigo de Israel
1 hour ago

A medida que se acercan las elecciones, Netanyahu presenta a Turquía como el nuevo enemigo de Israel

¿Por qué el francés se ha convertido en un punto conflictivo en la disputa comercial entre Canadá y EE.UU.?

A Black man once sentenced to death for murder fights for freedom after discovering his attorney defended the Ku Klux Klan

Michael Jordan’s ‘Last Dance’ 1998 Finals jersey could sell for over $10 million

EE.UU. afirma que tomará medidas enérgicas contra los países que hacen negocios con Irán. ¿Quién compra petróleo iraní?