Social media addiction among minors is a growing global governance challenge. Critically analyse regulatory responses across jurisdictions, with reference to the EU KIDS Act.

Addictive design — infinite scroll, streaks and re-engagement notifications — has turned minors' screen use into a public health and governance concern. The European Commission's proposed EU KIDS Act (2026) marks a shift from content policing to design regulation, though its promise remains untested.

Jurisdictional approaches diverge in design

• EU — graduated access: no independent account below 13; a parent-managed "mini account" with a one-hour daily cap for 13–14; independent accounts from 15 [1].
• Australia — flat prohibition: a blanket under-16 minimum age, enforced by the eSafety Commissioner [3].
• India — consent-based: the DPDP framework treats anyone under 18 as a child and mandates verifiable parental consent, regulating data processing rather than design [6].

Strengths of the EU model

• Reversed burden of proof: very large online platforms must demonstrate their services are safe for children, rather than regulators proving harm [1].
• Safety by design: explicit bans on infinite scroll, autoplay, streaks and re-engagement notifications directly target the addiction mechanism, not merely the gate [2].
• Privacy-preserving verification: certified checks via an EU app and Digital Identity Wallet using zero-knowledge proofs, with self-declaration ruled insufficient [2].

Critical limitations

• Enforcement leakage: eSafety's first compliance report flagged significant concerns about major platforms' implementation [3], showing age gates are easier legislated than enforced.
• Displacement risk: UNICEF warns bans may backfire, pushing children to shared devices and smaller, less-regulated apps — precisely where enforcement aimed at large platforms does not reach [4].
• Exclusion and data risk: the OECD notes age-assurance systems can over-collect personal data and exclude those lacking identity documents [5] — acute for India's marginalised households.
• Status: it remains a proposal, awaiting Parliament and Council approval [2].

Regulation must therefore be layered — age gates, enforceable design duties and digital literacy together. India's opportunity lies in pairing DPDP's stricter consent threshold with EU-style design obligations and privacy-preserving age assurance, advancing the child's best interests under the UNCRC and the Puttaswamy privacy standard.