Greece's social media ban for under-15s: What you need to know

Greece is preparing a ban on access to social networking services for minors who have not reached their 15th birthday. The measure is meant to reduce children’s exposure to risks linked to social media, including mental-health pressures, cyberbullying, and concentration problems. It also includes privacy safeguards.

The ban would cover services provided by online platforms, such as Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook. Platforms must use appropriate, proportionate, and reliable age-verification methods. Digital tools including Gov.gr Wallet and Kids Wallet could confirm whether someone meets the age threshold without revealing unnecessary personal information.

The bill is due to go before parliamentary committees on 13 October, followed by debate and a final plenary vote on 22 October. If the framework is approved, it is expected to apply from 1 January 2027. Platforms would have time to prepare, while enforcement would operate through Greece’s national authorities and the wider European Digital Services Act system.

A digital age token is a privacy-focused way to prove that a user has reached a required age. Instead of sending a platform a person’s full identity details, it provides confirmation about whether the user meets the prescribed threshold. The article presents this as a central option for enforcing Greece’s proposed under-15 restriction.

For example, Kids Wallet or Gov.gr Wallet could help generate or provide an age token. A social-media platform could receive confirmation that a user is at least 15, while not receiving the minor’s full identity or other sensitive personal data. The token therefore separates age checking from broader identity disclosure.

The bill requires these systems to use robust and accurate techniques. They must work in real-life conditions and include safeguards against circumvention. Companies may choose different technical solutions, but those solutions must comply with European law and collect no more data than necessary.

The proposed measure is broader than a rule aimed at one particular app. It covers social-network services provided by online platforms, with Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook given as clear examples. The central age boundary is a child’s 15th birthday, so the restriction applies to minors who have not yet reached 15.

A child aged 14 would fall within the proposed ban, while the article’s wording places someone who has reached 15 outside this specific restriction. Platforms would have to apply reliable age checks before allowing access. They could use digital age tokens or another compliant technical solution.

The framework is intended to take effect on 1 January 2027, after the bill’s planned parliamentary process. Its reach will depend on how platforms classify and check covered services. The article does not provide a complete list of every service that would be included, but it establishes a broad category and names three major examples.

The enforcement process can start in two ways. A user may submit a complaint, or another authority or body may pass information to the National Telecommunications and Post Commission, known as EETT. EETT is Greece’s Digital Services Coordinator and serves as the main national authority in the framework described.

When a possible violation concerns a platform supervised by another European Union member state, the case does not remain solely with Greece. EETT forwards it to the competent authority in the country where that platform is established. This arrangement reflects the cross-border structure of the Digital Services Act.

The process therefore links public complaints, national coordination, and European cooperation. It is not limited to a single Greek regulator handling every platform. The article does not describe the investigation’s possible penalties or final outcomes. It explains instead how concerns enter the system and how responsibility moves to the appropriate authority.

Greece’s main enforcement body is the National Telecommunications and Post Commission, or EETT, which acts as Digital Services Coordinator. The National Council for Radio and Television, or ESR, oversees relevant provisions within its remit. The Hellenic Data Protection Authority, or HDPA, handles personal-data issues and related Digital Services Act requirements.

More than one authority is involved because the rules combine several areas. They cover platform obligations, oversight of relevant provisions, privacy, and age-verification data. For example, ESR may address provisions within its remit, while HDPA considers whether personal-data protections are respected. EETT coordinates the main digital-services process.

Enforcement also operates through the European Union’s existing Digital Services Act mechanism. That system provides cross-border cooperation between national competent authorities and the European Commission. If a platform is supervised where it is established in another member state, Greece can forward the case there. Different bodies are therefore needed for different responsibilities and jurisdictions.

Gov.gr Wallet and Kids Wallet are expected to support age verification, but they are not the only permitted tools. The bill allows companies to choose different technical solutions. This gives platforms flexibility instead of forcing every service to adopt one technology.

Any alternative must still meet the requirements of European law. It must reliably establish whether a user has reached the age threshold, function effectively in real-life conditions, and include safeguards against attempts to circumvent the check. A compliant system could use the digital age-token approach described in the bill, provided it protects privacy.

The government’s stated aim is effective enforcement without imposing a single technical method across all services. Platforms remain responsible for verifying users’ ages, regardless of the solution they select. The article does not name specific alternatives beyond the general category of other technical solutions, so the exact technologies companies may deploy are not specified.

The article says parents face algorithms designed to keep children constantly connected. That repeated connection matters because the wider debate links childhood social-media use with mental-health pressures, symptoms of anxiety and depression, cyberbullying, and effects on concentration. The government presents regulation as a way to protect children’s health and development.

The source does not explain the technical details of how particular algorithms work. It does, however, connect platform design and constant engagement with the need for stronger safeguards. In practice, the concern is that continued exposure to social-media environments may leave children facing the risks identified by the article, including online bullying and pressure.

The proposed age limit and reliable checks are intended to reduce those risks, but the government acknowledges that results depend on platforms fulfilling their obligations. The framework therefore combines a clear boundary with enforcement and privacy protections. Its wider context is a European debate about children’s safety in the digital world.