Presentation of the EU KIDS Act opens up a new phase in the protection of minors in the digital environment. The European Association for Digital Transition welcomes the fact that the new European proposal places responsibility on those who design digital services. But we believe that age protections also extend to every functionality, configuration and design feature, without confusing the terms, that we offer to minors.
The European Commission proposes progressive access to social networks based on age and, above all, introduces a principle that the European Association for Digital Transition (EADT) considers essential: it is the providers who must show that the services they offer to minors are age-appropriate and safe by design.
For far too long we have shifted much of the responsibility to children, adolescents and families: properly configuring privacy, limiting use time, avoiding unwanted contacts, or understanding how algorithms, notifications and extraordinarily complex recommendation systems work. The EU KIDS Act is beginning to reverse this logic. Protection must begin with who designs the product.
The EADT supports this paradigm shift. But we believe it can go even further.
An application is not an indivisible product
The debate about minors and technology is usually raised as a binary argument: a minor can or cannot access Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp or any other service.
Technically, however, an application is not an indivisible unit.
Coexisting within the same service can be: private messaging → content publishing → algorithmic recommendations → short videos → autoplay → infinite scroll → notifications → livestreaming → geolocation → AI tools → personalised advertising → popularity and social comparison metrics.
Each of these services has a different purpose, presents different risks, and can be suitable for different ages.
It is not the same to allow a teenager to send a private message to a family member as it is to let them be contacted by some stranger.
It is not the same to access certain content as it is to subject yourself to a personalised recommendation system.
It is not the same to use an artificial intelligence tool as it is to include an AI companion designed to maintain ongoing conversations.
This is why the EADT raises a simple question: Why should access to one functionality necessarily involve exposure to all the others?
The EU KIDS Act itself is now moving in this direction by intervening in recommendation systems, designs that favour compulsive use, contacts with third parties, livestreaming, privacy settings, monetization mechanisms, video games or certain artificial intelligence systems.
The next logical step is to turn this approach into a general principle.
From age of access to functional modularity
The EADT proposes incorporating a principle of functional modularity or functional unbundling into the digital protection of minors.
The idea is not to just decide whether an entire application is appropriate or inappropriate for a certain age.
It consists in having providers identify the main functionalities, design characteristics, configurations and algorithmic mechanisms that are relevant from the risk perspective and to determine their suitability for different age ranges.
Thus, within the same service it could be established that: a certain functionality can be used as of a certain age; another must remain deactivated by default; another requires certain guarantees or supervision; and another cannot be offered to minors until the provider adequately validates its safety.
This does not necessarily mean more prohibitions. It means more precision.
And it allows a regulation based exclusively on access to a service to be replaced with another based as well on the true characteristics of the product the minor uses.
Safety must follow the risk
This approach is especially relevant because digital services are continually evolving. A social network can include messaging, video, e-commerce, artificial intelligence, geolocation or entertainment while still calling itself a social network.
Regulating exclusively by categories of services thus has a structural limitation.
At the EADT we believe that safety must be able to follow the product or functional element that creates the risk, and not only the commercial name of the service it is integrated in.
This would also make the Commission’s proposal to reverse the burden of proof much more specific.
The question would stop being only: “Is this platform safe for a child under the age of 14?” And it could be broken down into verifiable questions: Can they use private messaging and under what configuration? Can they receive personalised recommendations? Should it have infinite scroll? Can they receive certain notifications? Can they broadcast live? Can they be contacted by strangers? Can they use an artificial intelligence companion? Should they be shown public popularity metrics?
It is these decisions that turn safe by design into authentic product decisions.
We need to know exactly what we are regulating
To develop this model, the EADT considers it advisable to strengthen another aspect of the proposal during the process.
The text uses concepts such as feature, functionality, design feature or characteristic but does not establish a clearly differentiated legal taxonomy between them.
This is not a terminological debate.
If we want to demand accountability, it is important to determine which specific component of a service should be evaluated and which can be activated, deactivated, limited or excluded for a given age.
Regulation must be flexible enough to withstand technological innovation but also precise enough to allow for oversight, auditing and compliance.
From “how old you are” to “what the service can offer you”
Age matters.
But age alone cannot become the entire European policy on digital protection of minors.
At the EADT we believe that the EU KIDS Act offers an opportunity to evolve from a question essentially focused on access:
“How old are you to be able to enter?”
to a much more precise question:
“What can this service offer you at your age and what has the provider had to demonstrate in advance in order to offer it to you?”
This change would allow progressive digital environments to be built, ones in which children and adolescents can access services that are useful and appropriate without being automatically exposed to all the functionalities that a platform decides to include.
The EU KIDS Act has correctly placed the responsibility on those who design the technology.
The next step is to succeed in making this responsibility reach every product decision that determines a minor’s digital experience.
