Jörg Fegert calls on providers to demonstrate that digital services are safe before gaining access to minors

The recommendation presented in the European Parliament would maintain age restrictions until safe, child-appropriate features are introduced. Protections should be active by default, while features intended for adults should be unlocked only after effective age verification.

Providers of social networks and other digital services should demonstrate that they offer safe, age-appropriate features before gaining access to a minor audience, according to the recommendation supported by Jörg Fegert in the European Parliament in Strasbourg. The proposal presented to the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection would make access to children and adolescents conditional on protections being incorporated into the service, with age restrictions maintained until this condition is met.

In brief

1.Providers should demonstrate that their services are safe and age-appropriate before gaining access to minors. The recommendation belongs to Jörg Fegert and Maria Melchior and does not constitute a new obligation adopted by Parliament.

2.Protections should be integrated into the default configuration of services, including limits on features that encourage excessive use. Features intended for adults could be activated only after effective age verification.

3.The scope includes social networks, video services, games and virtual companions when their features or content pose risks to minors. Primary responsibility would lie with providers, alongside the supervisory and guidance role of parents.

4.The co-chairs call for cooperation between supervisory authorities and effective researcher access to platform data. Enforcement of the rules and risk assessment would depend on the authorities’ resources and the quality of the information provided.

Fegert and Maria Melchior, the co-chairs of the special group for children’s online safety, call for the responsibility of demonstrating the safety of products and services to rest with providers. “Until providers demonstrate that the features are safe and age-appropriate, thereby complying with European and national measures, they should not have access to minors,” the two write in their recommendations.

The condition would concern how the service operates for a minor user. In a version that is safe by default, age-inappropriate features intended for adults could be activated only after effective age verification. Protection should therefore be present in the configuration offered to the child from the outset.

Among the proposed changes are limits on infinite scrolling, autoplay, notifications and problematic personalized recommendation systems. The authors call for protective settings to be part of the service in order to combat design that encourages dependence, deceptive interfaces, unsolicited contacts and repeated exposure to certain types of content. The rules should be adaptable when new harmful features emerge.

The recommendation covers a broader field than social networks. It also targets video platforms that allow minors access to age-inappropriate content, games that expose them to harmful commercial practices or dangerous contacts, and artificial intelligence systems posing risks to their safety or development, including virtual companions. The criterion used by the co-chairs is the risk created by features and content.

Under this approach, primary responsibility for the safety of the service remains with the provider. Parents and caregivers, in parallel, have the role of supervising the time children spend online and guiding them in managing risks. For adolescents over 13, progressive autonomy should be exercised in safe, age-appropriate services.

The European Commission already recommends, through its 2025 guidelines on the protection of minors under the Digital Services Act, private accounts by default and the default disabling of certain features that encourage excessive use, such as autoplay and notifications. The guidelines are voluntary and do not automatically guarantee compliance. The Commission uses them as a benchmark for assessing compliance with Article 28(1).

Consistent implementation of protections would also require closer cooperation between supervisory authorities, according to the co-chairs. They call for information exchanges between authorities enforcing rules on digital services, data protection and artificial intelligence, as well as an assessment of the resources available to them. The recommendation seeks to avoid contradictory interventions and to use existing oversight structures.

Assessing the results would also depend on researchers’ access to platform data. Fegert and Melchior call for providers to respond effectively to requests for data for research and risk assessment, and for authorities to monitor compliance with these requirements. They point out that the usefulness of access depends on the quality and continuity of the data provided and support long-term research to better understand the effects of services on minors.

The recommendation is part of the proposals published in July by Fegert and Melchior and presented to IMCO on 14 September. They are endorsed by the two co-chairs and do not represent the official position of the European Commission. Presentation in Parliament does not establish a new legal obligation for providers.

https://2eu.brussels/ro/news/jorg-fegert-cere-ca-furnizorii-sa-demonstreze-siguranta-serviciilor-digitale-inainte-de-a-avea-acces-la-minori