The European Commission has released an 83-page impact assessment alongside its proposal for the EU Kids Act, a regulation mandating widespread age controls across social media, video platforms, chatbots, apps, and games. While the document aims to provide a scientific basis for the initiative and address fundamental rights concerns, a detailed analysis indicates that it downplays potential dangers, overlooks less intrusive alternatives, and selectively presents expert opinions to support its position.
A primary criticism of the assessment is its failure to adequately discuss milder measures. The proposed act requires strict age verification or estimation, potentially forcing all users, including adults, to submit sensitive data such as ID documents or biometric facial scans until they prove otherwise. Critics argue that device-level parental control software could serve as a targeted alternative, avoiding the need for universal surveillance infrastructure. However, the Commission's assessment treats parental tools merely as a supplement rather than a viable alternative, failing to weigh them against the proposed mandatory controls despite institutional agreements requiring such an evaluation.
The document also faces scrutiny for its misleading representation of expert input. It cites a report by a "Special Expert Panel" as the direct scientific foundation for the act, claiming it resulted from an independent process involving over 60 experts. In reality, the report reflects the recommendations of only two co-authors who did not seek consensus with the broader group of consulted specialists. Furthermore, the assessment omits details about the close ties between these authors and the Commission, including personal attendance by President Ursula von der Leyen at panel meetings and direct support from Commission experts during their research.
The analysis further highlights a distorted portrayal of German expert bodies. While the German Ethics Council warned against age controls and rejected social media bans, this critical stance is absent from the assessment. Similarly, a panel convened by the German Ministry of Family Affairs, which proposed either a minimum age of 13 or risk-based restrictions rather than a uniform limit, is presented one-sidedly as supporting a strict 13-year-old threshold. This selective reporting suggests an effort to cherry-pick data that aligns with the Commission's preferred regulatory approach.
Regarding fundamental rights, the assessment offers weak counterarguments to significant concerns about discrimination and freedom of expression. For individuals lacking compatible identification documents, such as those without legal residency status, the Commission suggests member states "may" establish manual verification procedures at local offices. Critics note that this optional measure does not guarantee access and fails to address barriers faced by those distrustful of state institutions. Additionally, while biometric age estimation is acknowledged as prone to errors of a few years—insufficient for distinguishing between critical age groups like 13, 15, or 18—the proposed solution of free complaint mechanisms is deemed unconvincing given existing issues with transparency and technical hurdles under the Digital Services Act.
The document also relies on speculative optimism regarding the effectiveness of these controls. Although it acknowledges that minors often find ways to bypass age restrictions and that enforcement requires a shift in societal attitudes, it asserts that reliable verification is crucial for safety without providing evidence of its efficacy. The assessment admits that technical circumvention remains possible and that young people might migrate to other services, yet it dismisses these risks by citing the act's "horizontal" approach, which expects millions of international operators to comply with new standards. Historical precedents, such as the persistence of illegal pornography sites despite bans and limited success in enforcing data protection laws, suggest a significant gap between regulatory intent and digital reality.
Finally, the assessment notes that the Commission considered an ex ante review of every digital service accessible to minors but discarded the idea as impractical. While it claims compliance costs for most providers will be manageable, ranging from hundreds to a few thousand euros, it does not address potential negative impacts on small, non-commercial offerings. The next steps involve the European Parliament and the Council developing their positions before entering trilogue negotiations, with legal experts estimating a possible agreement by late 2027 or early 2028. Meanwhile, the Commission has already established a trilateral working group with regulators from Australia and the UK to advance technical age verification standards.
Sources: netzpolitik.org.