16.02.2026

Prohibiting minors from accessing social networks: can a political decision take on legal form?

The measure to ban minors from accessing social media, which was introduced in Australia, has sparked a global debate on the protection of minors in the digital age. Several European countries have decided to join the initiative and have put forward proposals for regulation in this area. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has already expressed his firm intention to adhere to the restriction on social media for minors[1], and in France, a similar ban is to be put to a vote in the Senate[2]. The debate is also beginning to take shape in Romania. Beyond the arguments regarding the appropriateness of the ban, one aspect that should be analyzed is the compatibility of such a ban with the national and European constitutional framework.

The answer is far from unequivocal. Even though it was adopted in a historical context in which social networks were at best the stuff of science fiction, the Romanian Constitution regulates the constitutional protection of interests that may be in conflict. Social networks are a means of exercising freedom of expression, a fundamental right that may be subject to certain interferences, but only conditionally: the restriction must pursue a legitimate aim and be proportionate. A person's right to express themselves freely is symmetrically matched by the right to receive information. From this perspective, the Romanian Constitution provides in Article 31(3) that "The right to information shall not prejudice measures to protect young people (...)". Therefore, prohibiting access to social networks could be justified as a protective measure, particularly in relation to the right to health protection and the right to mental integrity. In addition, Article 49(1) of the Constitution requires the state to provide children and young people with "special protection." The Constitution does not define the concepts of child and young person, in which context Parliament opted, through Law No. 350/2006 on young people, to define them as young people. The Constitution does not define the concepts of child and young person, in which context Parliament opted, through Youth Law No. 350/2006, to define young people as "citizens between the ages of 14 and 35." Thus, in principle, the state would be free to take measures to protect children, but very strong arguments would have to be put forward to justify both the necessity and the proportionality of the measure. This justification is all the more necessary given that Article 49(5) of the Constitution requires the authorities to ensure the conditions for "the free participation of young people in political, social, and economic life (...)". At this point, the role of lawyers becomes secondary, as it is up to other specialists to explain what we currently know about the impact of social networks on children and whether such a measure is capable of achieving a legitimate goal.

However, the issues mentioned above are only part of the problem. Even if it were concluded that access to social networks is harmful to children's development, who should have the right to decide: the state, through a general ban, or parents? According to Article 29(6) of the Constitution, "Parents or guardians have the right to ensure, in accordance with their own convictions, the education of minor children for whom they are responsible." Furthermore, Article 48 of the Constitution provides for both the right and the duty of parents to ensure "the upbringing, education, and training of their children." Thus, while the state has its own responsibility to ensure the protection of children, it is no less important from a constitutional point of view to correlate this responsibility with the role of parents. In the context of the debate on prohibiting minors' access to social networks, strong arguments must be put forward to justify state intervention, as this means shifting decision-making power from parents to society through the democratic mechanism of parliamentary decision-making. In other words, is minors' access to social networks an issue that remains within the sphere of the family or, given its impact, does it fall within the broader sphere of society as a whole? The validity of the political decision depends on the answer to this question. In October 2025, as the first chamber to be consulted, the Senate adopted by a large majority the Online Age of Majority Law, a legislative initiative that seeks to impose parental consent for minors under the age of 16 to access social networks. Although there seems to be strong political consensus in Parliament, experts have drawn attention to the technical difficulties involved in this regulation, which is to be decided by the Chamber of Deputies.[3]

Another constitutional element that must be taken into account is the level of political decision-making. In November 2025, the European Parliament called for the adoption of legislative measures at EU level, with the proposed option being that the age at which access is permitted should be 16, and that minors between the ages of 13 and 16 should only be able to access social platforms with parental consent.[4]At the current stage of European legislation, the Digital Services Act (EU Regulation 2022/2065) requires online platform providers to take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure a high level of safety for minors, and in July 2025 the European Commission published a set of recommendations aimed at ensuring a better level of protection for children.[5]

It is difficult to predict whether swift action can be taken through the adoption of harmonized measures at European Union level. However, it is likely that the Union's competence to adopt measures in this area will be challenged, both by those who oppose harmonization in this sensitive area and by those Member States that wish to act quickly by imposing bans. At the same time, a genuine ban on the use of social networks could be considered an obstacle to the exercise of fundamental freedoms under EU law, one of which is the free movement of services. The Court of Justice of the European Union has already taken the position that the legitimate interest of protecting minors must be balanced against the freedom to provide services. For example, in Case C-244/06, Dynamic Medien Vertriebs GmbH v. Avides Media AG, the Court ruled that "although the protection of children is a legitimate interest which may justify, in principle, a restriction on a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the EC Treaty, such as the free movement of goods (...), it is nonetheless true that such restrictions can be justified only if they are capable of ensuring the attainment of the objective pursued and do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it."  In other words, in light of CJEU case law, a national measure adopted for the purpose of protecting minors, which imposes a restriction on a fundamental freedom guaranteed by EU law, is permissible if: (i) it is capable of ensuring the achievement of the objective pursued, (ii) it is proportionate, and (iii) it is necessary for the achievement of the objective. In this context, Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must also be taken into account, which recognises both their freedom of expression and the need to take protective measures in accordance with the principle of the best interests of the child.

Furthermore, certain specific situations may give rise to difficulties, including from the perspective of property rights. It is possible for a 15-year-old minor to have an account on social media platforms that generates certain income. If they were to be denied access to the social media platform, such a measure could be considered a genuine deprivation of a protected "asset" within the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is just one example of a situation in which other fundamental rights may come into play in the complex debate on banning access to social media.

In conclusion, if the decision to ban minors from social networks is essentially a political one, in order for it to become binding, it must be "clothed in legal garb." The regulation of such a ban can only be valid if it is in accordance with constitutional norms. From the perspective of the Romanian Constitution, there are two complementary elements that can be subsumed under the following question: are there sufficient arguments to justify the necessity and proportionality of state intervention through a general prohibition measure? If the answer is yes, then the measure is possible. The same arguments can also be used to justify a possible infringement of the freedom to provide services at EU level, but without the certainty that the CJEU and the constitutional courts would give the same answer to the question asked. As regards the nature of the arguments, they should have a strong scientific basis. Reservations have already been expressed about the Australian model, with a proposal to adapt the measures according to age groups.[6]

The debate on minors' access to social networks should not be viewed strictly from the perspective of the need for state or European Union intervention to resolve a current problem. On the contrary, this is only one stage of a phenomenon referred to in specialist literature as digital constitutionalism, a phenomenon in which old constitutional principles are adapted to new realities.

An article by Constantin Cosmin Pintilie, Managing Associate -cpintilie@stoica-asociatii.ro - and Cristiana-Victoria Romanovschi, Junior Lawyer -cromanovschi@stoica-asociatii.ro -  STOICA & ASOCIAȚII