{"id":6463,"date":"2026-09-06T21:57:43","date_gmt":"2026-09-06T20:57:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/caszin.com\/?p=6463"},"modified":"2026-09-06T21:59:31","modified_gmt":"2026-09-06T20:59:31","slug":"family-ministry-wants-age-controls-for-the-internet","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/caszin.com\/en\/family-ministry-wants-age-controls-for-the-internet\/","title":{"rendered":"Family Ministry Wants Age Controls for the Internet"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Federal Family Ministry under Karin Prien (CDU) is pushing plans that go far beyond a pure social media ban. Just a few weeks before the EU Commission under Ursula von der Leyen is expected to announce its own proposals for online age restrictions, Germany is planning a national solo effort. The minister wants to introduce age barriers for nearly all offerings that, in her ministry\u2019s view, are not suitable for children or young people. For operators of online portals \u2013 especially in the adult entertainment industry \u2013 this threatens a fundamental intervention in market access.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Own Experts Are Being Bypassed<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Prien is thereby disregarding the recommendations of her own interdisciplinary expert panel, which she herself convened. The 18 specialists presented their findings in June 2026 and were unable to agree on measures of the kind now intended. They recommended neither a general access ban for certain offerings nor a blanket age barrier of the breadth now planned. Instead, they advocated differentiated solutions \u2013 for example a minimum age of 13 for social media accounts or risk-based restrictions depending on the service. A general access ban for online offerings that are not demonstrably child-appropriate, as the ministry is now outlining, was explicitly not recommended by the experts. The ministry is thus overriding the work of its own panel \u2013 and this even though the detailed final report is only due to be submitted on 11 September.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prien is likewise ignoring the clear recommendations of the German Ethics Council. Its members had spoken out against a social media ban for minors in a comprehensive statement. Moreover, the plan has in no way been coordinated with the federal government. This is evident from the fact that Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz only recently explicitly positioned himself against a social media ban. There is no unified position within the government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AVS for the Internet<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

At their core, the plans amount to a kind of child lock for the entire internet. Originally it was about a social media ban below a certain age. Now general age barriers are to apply to all offerings that, according to the ministry, are not suitable for children or young people. This leads to a reversal of the burden of proof: online providers would in future have to prove that their offering is suitable for a particular age group \u2013 otherwise access restrictions threaten. \u201cDemonstrably child-appropriate offerings\u201d are to remain exempt; all others are not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Should the plans be implemented, practically all people on the internet would first have to confirm their verified age before they can access many offerings at all. The \u201ctechnically robust age verification that is data-sparing, secure and in line with data protection\u201d demanded by the ministry is technically practically impossible to implement in this form. The more robust an age check is intended to be, the more strongly it interferes with fundamental rights such as data protection and participation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Practically Censorship<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This would amount to censorship: online providers would first have to demonstrate that their services are suitable for certain age groups before they would even be allowed to distribute their offering on the European market. For the adult entertainment industry, whose content is by nature not regarded as \u201cchild-appropriate,\u201d this would be existentially threatening. Access would be comprehensively linked to age checks \u2013 a massive interference with freedom of information and economic freedom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

France\u2019s Failure as a Warning<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The social media ban for minors recently adopted in France was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Council for several reasons and has thereby completely failed. The ban was too blanket, overrode the rights of parents, and contained no adequate provisions for the protection of privacy. Parallels to the German legal situation are obvious: here too, the parental primacy in upbringing (Art. 6 of the Basic Law), the principle of proportionality, and the essentiality doctrine apply. National solo efforts also conflict with the EU\u2019s Digital Services Act (DSA), which currently does not allow platforms to be generally obliged to implement age checks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this case, both technical and legal incompetence on the part of politicians is apparent. They demand systems that are supposed to be data-sparing and at the same time robust \u2013 a contradiction that experts have been pointing out for years. They override their own expert bodies, ignore constitutional principles, and risk conflicts with EU law without presenting viable solutions. The result is symbolic politics and unrealistic maximum demands that are bound to fail in practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Australia\u2019s Dark Example<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The look to Australia is also a warning. There, the social media ban for everyone under 16 will enter into force on 10 December 2026. Young people will lose access to platforms such as TikTok, Instagram and YouTube. The effects are foreseeable: the ban is ineffective for youth protection. Young people will switch to less regulated services, messengers or VPNs. The major platforms no longer need to make an effort to create safe spaces for minors, since these are officially no longer allowed to be there. At the same time, millions of adults will have to disclose their identity \u2013 sensitive data will end up with third-party providers and become a target for authorities and criminals. Youth protection gains nothing; control over the net increases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion: Hardly Compatible with the Constitution \u2013 and Harmful to Youth Protection and the Industry<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The plans of the Family Ministry are unlikely to be compatible with the Basic Law. As in France, they risk the fate of unconstitutionality should they even be adopted. Political incompetence \u2013 the overriding of experts, the ignorance of ethical and legal boundaries, and the technical naivety \u2013 thereby harms youth protection rather than promoting it. Instead, the proposals aim to burden and regulate the adult entertainment industry and numerous other online providers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The prospect of actual implementation remains low \u2013 the constitutional, European and technical hurdles are too great. Nevertheless, the adult industry should keep a close eye on these developments and take them seriously. We will continue to report on this on an ongoing basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sources:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n