tl;dr
In India, state level proposals to restrict children’s access to social media are gaining momentum. States such as Andhra Pradesh, Goa and Karnataka have considered age-based restrictions. However, deciding that children need greater protection online is only the beginning of any regulatory exercise. A framework that intends to protect children from online harms must first answer some basic questions such as: who should be considered a child for the purpose of restrictions? What services should count as social media? What specific risks or harms is the regulation intended to address?
To contribute to these questions, IFF has published a “Factsheet on Children’s Use of Social Media in India”. The factsheet examines India’s existing legal framework, emerging State-level proposals and international approaches to age-based social media regulation. It argues that any regulatory intervention must be evidence-based, proportionate and attentive to children’s evolving capacities, while placing the primary responsibility for creating safer digital environments on platforms. It further recommends that design-based protections should be prioritised before more restrictive measures such as prohibiting access are considered.
Background
Children increasingly use social media for communication, learning, entertainment, self-expression and participation. At the same time, concerns have grown around children’s exposure to risks and harms associated with social media use. However, the available evidence does not establish that social media use causes changes in adolescent well-being at the population level. More consistent concerns relate to particular patterns and experiences, including problematic use, sleep disruption, cyberbullying and heightened sensitivity during certain stages of adolescence.
These concerns have entered the policy debate in India. In April 2025, a petition before the Supreme Court sought a statutory prohibition on social media use by children below 13 years, along with age-verification requirements for platforms. The Supreme Court declined to entertain the petition, observing that the issue fell within the domain of policy.
Alongside this, State governments in India have also begun examining age-based restrictions. Andhra Pradesh considered restricting access for children below 13 while developing separate safeguards for those between 13 and 16 years. Goa has examined restrictions for persons below 16 alongside measures such as parental controls and awareness programmes.Similarly, Karnataka also announced its intention to prohibit social media use for children below 16 years. None of these States have, however, enacted an operative restriction.
There is also a question as to whether States can impose binding obligations on social media intermediaries. The factsheet notes that regulation of intermediaries and online communication is governed by the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the rules made under it, and that platform-facing obligations may therefore need to be enacted at the Union level. States may nevertheless act in areas such as school device policies, digital literacy and awareness programmes.
The growing policy interest makes it important to first identify the problem that regulation is intended to solve. A restriction based only on a child’s age may appear straightforward, but its consequences depend significantly on the age threshold selected, the platforms covered, the method used to determine a user’s age and the particular risks the restriction seeks to address.
Our factsheet therefore attempts to consolidate some of the foundational questions that should inform this debate.
Analysis
There is no single legal understanding of who is a “child”
Indian law does not use one uniform age threshold to define a ‘child’ across all contexts. The age at which a person is treated as a child, minor or adolescent changes depending on the purpose of the law. For instance, the Right to Education framework applies to children between 6 and 14 years, the Child and Adolescent Labour law separately defines children below 14 and adolescents between 14 and 18, while POCSO, the Juvenile Justice Act, the IT Rules, 2021 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 generally treat persons below 18 years of age as children.
This distinction becomes particularly important when considering restrictions on social media.
The fact that the DPDP Act treats everyone below 18 as a child does not necessarily mean that 18 must also become the age below which access to social media is prohibited. The 18 year threshold in the data protection framework was adopted in part because consent to the processing of personal data is connected with contractual capacity. The framework separately protects children against risks arising from tracking, behavioural monitoring and targeted advertising. These obligations under the DPDP Act and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 are currently being phased into operation. A restriction on access to social media raises a different set of questions.
Children also do not suddenly acquire the capacity to understand risks and make independent decisions. Their autonomy, understanding and ability to navigate online spaces develop gradually. Any framework regulating social media must therefore account for children’s evolving capacities, rather than treating every person below 18 as an identical category.
A differentiated approach may consequently be more appropriate. A minimum age could determine when independent access to certain services is permitted, while additional protections against profiling, behavioural monitoring, targeted advertising or harmful platform design could continue to apply to older adolescents.
Not everything described as “social media” creates the same risks
The IT Rules, 2021 define a “social media intermediary” broadly as an intermediary that primarily or solely enables interaction between users and allows them to create, upload, share, disseminate, modify or access information.
This definition may include services with very different functions. A private messaging service and a public social networking platform may both allow users to communicate with each other, but they do not necessarily expose children to the same forms or degrees of risk. Platforms based around public content sharing, algorithmic recommendations, persistent notifications or engagement-maximising features may raise concerns that are different from those associated with private messaging.
A future framework may therefore require a narrower category of an “age-restricted social media intermediary”, linked to the functions, design and risks of a particular service rather than merely whether it enables communication between users.
This distinction is visible in Australia. Its framework restricts holding of an account on specified age-restricted social media platforms for persons below 16. It distinguishes social media platforms from services such as WhatsApp, Google Classroom and YouTube Kids.
Different online risks may require different responses
The factsheet also attempts to understand the risk of harm and harm that has actually materialised. Since regulation can operate ex-ante and ex-post. Exposure to a particular online risk does not mean that every child will necessarily experience the same harm, or experience it in the same manner.
To understand these risks, the factsheet relies on the commonly used “4Cs” classification of online risks to children: content, contact, conduct and contract. These categories capture risks arising from harmful content; harmful interactions with others; harmful behaviour in which children participate or are targeted; and commercial or contractual practices that may exploit children. Privacy, health and fair treatment may cut across each of these categories.
Recognising these distinctions is important because there may not be a single regulatory solution to every form of harm. Restricting access may address some concerns for younger children, while risks arising from targeted advertising, profiling, harmful design features, cyberbullying or inappropriate contact may require different interventions.
Restrictions may not affect all children equally
The factsheet also highlights that children’s access to digital services in India is already unequal. In particular, Indian data shows persistent gender differences in smartphone ownership and social media use. ASER 2024, for example, found lower smartphone ownership and social media use among rural girls aged 14-16 years than among boys.
This matters for regulatory design. A restriction that depends on parental consent or family-mediated age verification may reinforce existing inequalities where access to devices is already controlled within households. Any assessment of an age-based restriction must therefore consider not only its intended benefits but also who is most likely to bear the costs of reduced access.
Age assurance also raises privacy and accuracy concerns
Any minimum-age requirement will depend on some form of age assurance. However, different methods of determining age involve different levels of accuracy, privacy intrusion and risk of discrimination. Facial age-estimation systems, for example, may produce errors around the very age thresholds that legislation seeks to enforce.
Any age-assurance framework should therefore be proportionate and data-minimising and should provide safeguards against inaccurate assessments. Where possible, verification should establish only whether a user is above or below the relevant threshold rather than requiring disclosure of their identity or exact age.
International approaches point towards more differentiated models
Australia has adopted a minimum age of 16 for holding an account on covered social media platforms, with obligations placed principally on platforms rather than children or parents. The obligation has been in force since 10 December 2025. Early implementation shows that millions of accounts identified as belonging to under-16 users have been removed or restricted, although early research also indicates continued access and circumvention by some adolescents.
The United Kingdom has combined its existing child-safety obligations under the Online Safety Act with proposals for a minimum age of 16 for covered social media services. Importantly, the proposed framework also contemplates continuing protections for users aged 16 and 17 and additional measures addressing persuasive or engagement-maximising features.
France has also adopted legislation establishing a minimum age of 15 for access to covered social networks. However, the measure is not yet in force and was referred to the Constitutional Council in July 2026.
These approaches demonstrate that an age threshold does not need to operate as the sole child-safety measure. Restrictions on access can sit alongside design obligations, privacy protections and safeguards that continue to apply after a child crosses the relevant age threshold.
Action
IFF has published a factsheet in order to contribute to the emerging debate on children’s use of social media in India by setting out the questions that must be answered before an age-based regulatory framework is adopted.
The factsheet recommends that India must first strengthen the evidence base on how children use digital services, including through sustained and longitudinal research that reflects differences across age, gender and geography.
It also recommends treating safer platform design as the first-line regulatory response. Measures such as private-by-default accounts, restrictions on contact from strangers, recommender-system safeguards, limits on persistent notifications and other engagement-maximising features should be considered before a blanket restriction on access is adopted.
IFF believes that any proposal to regulate children’s access to social media must be preceded by meaningful public consultation involving children and adolescents themselves, parents and caregivers, child-rights organisations, educators, mental-health experts, civil society organisations, industry representatives and State governments. Such consultation must be informed by evidence about how children in India actually use digital services and should examine not only the effectiveness of age restrictions, but also the feasibility, accuracy, potential bias, and privacy implications of age-assurance mechanisms.
Ultimately, an age threshold cannot by itself address the different risks children may encounter online. Any restriction must be narrowly tailored to a demonstrated risk, account for children’s evolving capacities, avoid deepening existing inequalities in access, and satisfy constitutional requirements of necessity and proportionality.
Important Links
- Factsheet on Children’s Use of Social Media in India https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMijAFBVV95cUxQOEZNblB6Uk5MRklERXdPdjMzcEN3ek11eXhxRVZPcFVGZnBjS21pWHFra3hBbHlQWUZrV2F3Tk9QQ2lmYi1WNFhqaVZJeGtNOVhSUGVtVm5RUXRucHJJdlZGMW9kSi01MVpSUkpyYTB6U2Jhd1J0blBLS2VtRWJJYUwzNXdTTVlUY2lNbQ?oc=5
