France’s attempt to keep children under 15 off social media has run into a constitutional barrier: the government’s child-safety agenda now faces a court ruling that treats the ban itself as an excessive intrusion on fundamental rights.

The Constitutional Council blocked the Macron-backed legislation, finding that it “constituted a disproportionate infringement on freedom of expression and communication.”¹ The court also said the measure failed to provide adequate safeguards for privacy and could cover services whose risks to minors had not been established.

The conservative account presents the ruling primarily as a rebuke to President Emmanuel Macron’s political project: a sweeping prohibition aimed at users under 15, regardless of their individual circumstances. The court objected to that blanket approach, saying it did not sufficiently account for a child’s “age, level of maturity, and family situation.”¹

The liberal account places greater emphasis on the policy’s intended purpose. The government had promoted the ban as protection against anxiety, depression, sleep disruption and online harassment, while Macron had pledged to implement it by September. But the same report highlights a second constitutional concern: requiring age verification for all users could itself threaten privacy.²

That contrast defines the dispute. Supporters see decisive regulation as necessary to counter the harms of platforms such as TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram; the court sees a restriction that is too broad to be justified. Former Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, who backed the law, called social media “a deadly poison for our children,” while accepting the ruling.²

Macron’s administration has not abandoned the effort. The Élysée Palace says Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu will produce a “legally robust draft” that complies with the judgment and European rules.² The battle is therefore shifting from whether children need protection to how far the state can go to provide it.