In the light of Australia's recent ban on social media for children under 16, India too must reconsider its regulatory landscape and introduce a Minimum Age Law to protect its minors. Across jurisdictions and legal traditions, one principle remains constant: the state has an affirmative duty to protect children from foreseeable harm. This obligation is not merely decorous rhetoric but a binding legal responsibility grounded in domestic statutes, constitutional doctrines, and international conventions. Yet despite the growing evidence of psychological, developmental, and safety-related risks associated with prolonged and unregulated social media exposure, governments have been slow to act. In many countries, the responsibility of determining who may enter these vast digital ecosystems is left almost entirely to private corporations whose primary motivations are commercial rather than protective. The result is a regulatory vacuum that leaves children exposed to significant risks and places states in breach of their own legal commitments. If the law already recognises that minors require heightened protection, then allowing platforms to self-police is not only inadequate but also inconsistent with the established duty of care owed to young users. The need for immediate, comprehensive legislation is therefore both urgent and unavoidable.
Child-protection frameworks around the world already impose obligations on the state to shield minors from harm. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) requires signatory governments to take legislative, administrative, and educational measures to safeguard children from exploitation, harmful influences, and unsafe environments. The digital sphere, being a central domain of modern childhood, clearly falls within this mandate. Domestic legal systems reinforce this foundation. In the United States, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) establishes stringent requirements for online platforms that collect data from children under 13, mandating verifiable parental consent and restricting data use. What is significant about COPPA is not merely its protective provisions but the fact that it treats digital platforms as entities subject to statutory duties rather than voluntary codes. Enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission underscores that safeguarding minors online is a legal obligation, not a matter of corporate self-restraint.
Europe adopts an even broader lens. Article 8 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) establishes a default digital age of consent—typically 16, though states may choose an age between 13 and 16—requiring parental authorisation for the processing of children's data. This provision recognises that children's interactions in digital spaces inherently demand heightened legal protection. The European Union's Digital Services Act adds another layer by prohibiting targeted advertising to minors and compelling platforms to conduct detailed risk assessments aimed at preventing exposure to harmful or manipulative content. The United Kingdom's Online Safety Act, enacted in 2023, similarly imposes a statutory duty of care, requiring platforms to ensure age-appropriate experiences, implement age-assurance technologies, and reduce the likelihood that young users will encounter dangerous material. Across these jurisdictions, the legal trend is unmistakable: where systemic digital risks loom, legislation—not corporate benevolence—is the appropriate safeguarding mechanism.
Case law further reinforces that states are permitted—and indeed expected—to regulate in the interests of child safety, provided such regulation is carefully tailored. In United States v. American Library Association (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld federal requirements that public libraries install filters to block minors from viewing harmful online content. The Court recognised the legitimacy of governmental efforts to shield children from exposure to dangerous digital material. Opponents of regulation often invoke Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011), where the Court struck down a California law restricting sales of violent video games to minors on First Amendment grounds. However, Brown does not create a blanket prohibition against child-protective digital legislation. Rather, it rejects overbroad or poorly substantiated laws while explicitly acknowledging that narrowly tailored, evidence-based measures aimed at protecting minors from demonstrable harms may be permissible. In essence, the judiciary has consistently signalled that properly designed legislation concerning digital safety is not only lawful but compatible with constitutional protections. The legal obstacle, therefore, is not the principle of regulation itself but the need for precision and proportionality in its implementation.
Despite these legal precedents and statutory frameworks elsewhere, many countries continue to rely on self-regulation by social media corporations. This approach is fundamentally flawed. Platforms currently decide their own age thresholds, age-verification practices, content policies, and enforcement mechanisms. Most rely on self-declared dates of birth, which are notoriously easy for children to falsify. Enforcement is inconsistent and opaque. The commercial incentives of these companies, driven by engagement metrics and targeted advertising revenue, often conflict with the welfare of young users. Algorithms designed to maximise screen time and emotional engagement are ill-suited to safeguard vulnerable individuals. A system that depends on voluntary corporate compliance is inherently unreliable, particularly when the interests of children diverge from profit motives. Moreover, without binding obligations, there is no clear mechanism for accountability when harm occurs. If a child is exposed to predatory behaviour, harmful challenges, or psychologically destabilising content as a consequence of lax platform oversight, families have little recourse. The absence of enforceable duties leaves responsibility diffused and consequences unaddressed.
Comparative international developments demonstrate that effective regulation is not only feasible but increasingly recognised as necessary. Australia's recent move to legally prohibit social media access for individuals under 16 and to mandate strict age-verification standards shows a strong national commitment to addressing the issue. In the United States, proposed legislation such as the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) seeks to create a statutory duty of care for platforms, signalling a shift away from purely market-driven oversight. The European Union's Digital Services Act and the United Kingdom's Online Safety Act provide detailed regulatory frameworks that balance child protection with fundamental rights. Together, they establish robust oversight mechanisms, mandate transparency, and impose meaningful penalties on platforms that fail to comply. These international examples illustrate the direction in which global governance is moving: toward recognising that protecting minors in digital environments requires statutory authority, institutional oversight, and enforceable standards.
The argument for immediate legislation becomes even more compelling when considering the nature of the harms associated with unregulated social media exposure. Research consistently links excessive or unmoderated social media use among minors to heightened anxiety, depression, disrupted sleep, body-image issues, online grooming, and exposure to radicalising content. While no single statute can eliminate these risks entirely, legal frameworks can significantly reduce the likelihood of harm by delaying access until children have greater psychological resilience, requiring platforms to adopt safety-by-design principles, and ensuring that young users are not subject to invasive data collection or manipulative advertising. A legal mandate that compels platforms to implement effective age-assurance technologies, limits profiling of minors, and requires transparent reporting of safety risks is not a barrier to innovation but a necessary condition for responsible technological development.
Ultimately, the regulatory vacuum regarding minors' access to social media constitutes a failure of law, not merely a gap in policy. Governments that allow children to navigate powerful, unregulated digital environments abdicate a core protective responsibility. Legislation is not a restriction on freedom but an affirmation of society's commitment to safeguarding those who cannot adequately protect themselves. The legal foundation for such intervention already exists; what is lacking is legislative resolve. As technology continues to evolve at a rapid pace, the risks to young users will only intensify. States must therefore act with urgency to establish clear age thresholds, robust verification processes, transparent oversight structures, and meaningful accountability mechanisms. Leaving the welfare of minors to the discretion of global corporations is not regulation—it is neglect. A modern society that values its children must ensure that the law, not corporate policy, stands as their first line of defence.
Author is a Professor at Brainware University. Kolkata. Views are personal.