The Age-Gating Illusion: How to Look Tough on Child Safety Without Actually Being Tough

INTRODUCTION

In February 2026, the Karnataka Government, in all its wisdom, decided to signify its intent to ban social media for minors under the age of sixteen. Andhra Pradesh was very much riding in the same train, as it sought to impose a similar ban, but for minors below 13 years old. The Union Government was a little more grandiose as it chose to use graded age brackets instead as an experimentation. None of these intentions have translated to definitive acts or bills as of now, but a word of caution at this stage itself would be useful. These prohibitions seem to be a simple and convenient, albeit I argue not well-thought, response to various problems that plague the digital era, such as reports of children being addicted to social media, an increased dependence on smartphones, digital fraud and manipulation, vulnerability to online sexual abuse or bullying, etc, but does regulating the child themselves really solve the crisis? Or would it be better to address how the product targets the child and actually work to change that?

This piece argues that the entire premise that the Union and state governments have proceeded on is severely misdirected by firstly, examining comparative age-gating regimes already in force in other jurisdictions, and why exclusion is not the right tool. Secondly, it proposes alternative measures that may be taken to combat the social media crisis and ensure the well-being of children.

COMPARATIVE AGE-GATING REGIMES

When one hears about the proposal by Karnataka, Andhra, or even the Union for that matter, their mind would probably remember the Australian prohibition that caused furore. Its Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2025 (“OSAA”) regulates platforms and requires them take reasonable steps to keep minors under the age of 16 away from their services. Its enforcement mechanism? A harsh penalty based system for non-compliance that could potentially run a company into tens of millions of dollars of fines. Parents right to give consent to let their children use such platforms was also stripped away in an instant. Akin to the justification in India, the Australian government cited the mental health and wellbeing of every Australian child by stating that the risks associated with social media far outweigh the benefits.

But let’s not forget the most important bit. By that I mean the true test of a good legislation, which is not just making a law, but also ensuring its enforcement and implementation. This is where OSAA fell drastically short and has failed at its first step of implementation. Reports state that teens are able to freely access social media platforms, either by bypassing age verification on said platforms or by using proxy networks. Every four in five under-16 individuals continue using these platforms. There has also not been any substantial or demonstrable reduction in reducing their time online, even when they stopped using restricted platforms, they simply switched to messaging apps or video gaming alternatives. Another risk that has been commonly associated with a ban is that kids may move to less regulated (or maybe even not regulated!) where they may be more vulnerable. The answer to these issues by the Australian Government? Double the fines!

The first thing that the law must and should realize is the social dynamics of human beings (especially children) and their psyche before addressing such issues that are as social as they are legal. A key indicator can be sourced from Danah Boyd’s work, who recognised that young people would treat any adult-imposed digital restriction as a puzzle for them to solve, rather than as a true boundary to respect. The situation in Australia vindicates this theory with casual and frankly callous circumvention of digital regulations by teenagers. She also argues that social media is not an actual addiction with the platform, but rather an a obsession for teens to connect with their friends through the most popular means. This aptly understands the psyche of a child, which is often characterised by a rebellion in the face of authority.

Removing a child’s account, rather than focusing on an platform regulation and proposing structural changes, is precisely what a blanket-prohibition law misses wholeheartedly. Most of the restricted platforms operate their business models on the mechanics of ensuring a user spends maximum time on the platform and hence generate behavioural data. They employ different and frankly innovative means to ensure this occurs, such as infinite scrolling, autoplay, and recommender systems tuned to ensure a user is watching exactly what the platform wants them to watch. Evidence points towards such methods specifically targeting a younger audience that would show less resistance to such persuasive and intrusive designs. Unsurprisingly, even UNICEF Australia has expressed their displeasure in regards to a regulation that imposes a blanket ban, instead of regulating and ensuring social media platforms become safer.

Hence, even when the real-life implementation of a prohibitive measure has demonstrably failed at step one, it does not seem like an ideal approach for India and its states to implement similar measures in a country such as India which is already plagued by a population crisis and marred by debates on civil and political freedom. This is not to say that social media has not caused a crisis amongst Indian youth such as an increase in mental health crisis and over-dependence, but rather an argument for a more well-thought-out mechanism to tackle the issue.

ALTERNATIVE STEPS THAT COULD MEET THE OBJECTIVE

To understand an ideal framework, it becomes necessary to approach regulation through a ‘design-first’ approach such as that suggested by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in General Comment No. 25, that states should require businesses to conduct child rights impact assessments and to redesign defaults, such as privacy and recommender systems which would ensure that engagement is not prioritised at the expensive of a child’s wellbeing.

The EU’s Digital Services Act, 2022 serves as an ideal starting point to creating a well-thought-out regulation. It requires platforms to remain accessible to minors, but adopt appropriate measures to ensure their privacy, safety, and security is safeguarded. In fact, it goes one step further and even requires large platforms to conduct comprehensive child-specific harm risk assessments annually. It creates a well-designed framework that includes age-verification (not to be confused with age-based prohibition) amongst other obligations such as restrictions on typically manipulative commercial design such as loot boxes or hidden advertising.

Looking elsewhere would probably lead to the interesting alternative proposed in the Brazilian model, which places a requirement that every account held by a user under sixteen is to be explicitly linked to a verified guardian along with similar restrictions that were placed in the EU law. This approach takes a more parent-oriented approach which ensures adequate adult oversight in the activities of a child while keeping the child’s freedom to access social media in place.

Indian law itself has some provisions that regulate children’s safety online including Section 9 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which mandates verifiable parental consent prior to the processing of a child’s data, along with prohibiting behavioural monitoring and targeted advertising directed towards a child.

CONCLUSION

It is pertinent that the State can’t afford a lenient outlook towards the regulation of and assurance of a child’s safety amidst the backdrop of technology, particularly in an economy like India. Thus, instead of stating it isn’t a problem and looking for viable options, we can look at examples such as the EU Digital Services Act, when drafting relevant legislation aimed at safeguarding children’s safety and wellbeing.

The problem was never that children are present on the internet, it is that the internet, as it currently stands, is designed to exploit them. A blanket ban, as Australia has so plainly demonstrated, does not and most likely will not solve this. It merely shifts the goalpost while the child, ever the puzzle solver Boyd describes them to be, finds their way right back to where they started, or worse, ends up on platforms with even less oversight. If India genuinely wishes to protect its children, the answer lies not in switching the child off, but in redesigning the platform itself.

Author’s Bio – Mihir Teja Kalle is a fourth-year student at National Law Institute University, Bhopal. He is interested in International Trade Law, Banking Law, and Constitutional Law. He can be reached on mihirtejakalle.ballb@nliu.ac.in