Spain’s government has announced plans to ban children under the age of 16 from accessing social media, a move that would force platforms to block millions of young users and implement what officials describe as “real” age-verification systems.
The proposal is set to be approved by the Council of Ministers next week, but the consequences are already rippling outward. The risk is no longer theoretical: access rules are tightening before enforcement systems are clearly defined.
The announcement came from Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, who framed the measure as part of a wider effort to “regain control” of the digital space. Platforms, he said, have failed to prevent harm, leaving governments with little choice but to intervene.
What remains unclear is who will ultimately bear responsibility if the new controls fail, overreach, or expose users in new ways.
Spain’s proposal goes further than its current draft legislation, which already aimed to restrict social media access to users aged 16 and older. The amended version would explicitly prohibit minors from registering on social platforms at all.
That shift places immediate pressure on companies to verify age reliably, not through self-declaration or checkboxes, but through systems that can withstand legal and regulatory scrutiny.
Similar moves are gaining momentum across Europe. Denmark has announced plans to ban under-15s from social media, France is pushing to implement a comparable ban later this year, and Portugal is debating legislation that would require parental consent for under-16s.
Spain’s proposal, however, is among the most assertive so far, combining access restrictions with potential criminal and civil liability for platform executives.
The failure point at the center of the debate is not the stated goal of protecting children, but the systems that allowed harm to scale before governments intervened.
For years, responsibility for online safety has been spread across platforms, parents, schools, and regulators. Enforcement has often lagged behind growth, leaving oversight fragmented and reactive. Spain’s move reflects a judgment that existing safeguards were insufficient or unenforced.
The proposed measures also extend beyond age limits. Sánchez’s package includes tools to monitor the spread of disinformation, hate speech, and child abuse material, as well as provisions that would criminalize algorithmic manipulation that amplifies illegal content.
The government has signaled it is prepared to investigate platforms whose systems prioritize engagement over compliance, raising the stakes for executives and shareholders alike.
For the public, the risk translates into a broader loss of clarity over who controls access, data, and accountability online. Age-verification systems require the collection and validation of personal information, creating new questions about privacy, security, and misuse.
Parents may find themselves responsible for compliance decisions they do not control, while platforms face penalties without a single, standardized verification framework.
Responsibility is further blurred at the European level. The Digital Services Act already requires large platforms to mitigate risks associated with online content, with enforcement authority resting largely with the European Commission.
National governments, however, are now moving faster than EU-wide mechanisms, creating overlapping obligations and potential conflicts over jurisdiction and enforcement.
The European Commission has already shown it is willing to act. In December, it imposed a €120 million fine on X, formerly Twitter, for failing to meet transparency requirements under EU law.
A broader investigation into the platform’s handling of illegal content and disinformation is ongoing, placing additional scrutiny on companies led by figures such as Elon Musk.
What remains unresolved is how these overlapping rules will operate in practice. If a platform’s verification system blocks legitimate users, leaks data, or fails to detect underage accounts, it is not yet clear whether liability will rest with the company, national regulators, EU authorities, or individual executives. The accountability gap sits squarely between ambition and execution.
The tension driving the debate is structural rather than ideological. Governments argue that speed and scale have outpaced safety, while platforms warn that rigid controls may undermine privacy, innovation, and free expression.
The question is not whether regulation is justified, but whether the mechanisms now being rushed into place can function without creating new risks.
Scrutiny is likely to intensify rather than resolve quickly. Spain’s proposal will be debated domestically and examined closely by EU institutions, while other countries consider similar restrictions.
Platforms may tighten controls pre-emptively, not because the rules are clear, but because the cost of inaction is rising.
At its core, the story is about trust. Once governments conclude that voluntary compliance has failed, control shifts abruptly and unevenly.
Rebuilding confidence in digital systems after that point becomes harder, not easier, especially when responsibility for failure is spread so widely that no single actor can be held fully to account.
