Greece’s Parliament is set to vote Thursday on a government bill that would prohibit children under 15 from using social media, setting up a confrontation over how far the state should go to protect minors online.
The measure, which is being debated in the plenary session of Parliament, has drawn support from organizations representing health and child welfare interests, but opposition parties have raised questions about its effectiveness, enforcement and potential impact on personal data.
If approved, the restrictions are due to take effect on January 1, 2027.
At the center of the debate are how users’ ages will be verified, what personal information will be processed and how much responsibility should fall on social media platforms. Parties also disagree over whether a blanket age-based prohibition can address the broader risks children face online.
NEWSLETTER TABLE TALK
Never miss a story.
Subscribe now.
The most important news & topics every week in your inbox.
The main opposition party, PASOK, is expected to vote “present” while submitting its own proposal. SYRIZA is also not expected to support the provision. The Communist Party of Greece and the left-wing Course of Freedom party have already said they will vote against it in parliamentary committee discussions. Other parties have maintained reservations ahead of Thursday’s vote.
Opposition questions whether a blanket ban will work
PASOK has mounted some of the strongest criticism of the government’s approach.
Stefanos Parastatidis accused the government of using child protection for political and communications purposes, telling Minister of State Akis Skertsos: “You are not here to protect children, but yourselves.”
PASOK is instead calling for age-based protections that vary according to children’s ages, greater digital literacy, parental involvement and stronger accountability for technology companies.
The party also questions the decision to introduce a nationwide blanket ban while the European Union is still discussing a broader framework for regulating children’s access to digital platforms. It argues that the measure’s popularity in opinion polls does not in itself demonstrate that it will be effective.
SYRIZA lawmaker Elena Akrita similarly drew a distinction between demonstrating that a problem exists and demonstrating that the proposed solution is the most effective one.
She pointed to concerns over whether the age-verification system will be ready, how personal data will be protected and whether children could simply move to services that remain accessible.
SYRIZA argues that the bill primarily restricts children’s access rather than placing equivalent emphasis on changing the practices of the platforms themselves.
The Communist Party’s Vivi Daga said addictive platform design and harmful content are linked to the profit-driven operation of technology companies, which she argued would not be fundamentally changed by the bill.
She also warned that widespread age verification could lead to broader data collection. The party says prevention should include stronger public mental-health services, creative activities for children and conditions that allow parents to spend meaningful time with their children.
The Course of Freedom, through Elli Roussou, described the blanket restriction as a “digital barbed wire fence” and called for specific answers about algorithmic controls and the obligations of technology companies. She also highlighted risks extending beyond social media, including digital abuse involving artificial intelligence tools.
The Greek Solution and Niki parties have also expressed reservations. The Greek Solution warned that children could circumvent restrictions by using other people’s accounts or move to less secure online environments. Niki called for guarantees over age verification, clear justification for penalties and testing results before the system is implemented.
Government says platforms, not parents, should bear responsibility
Skertsos defended the legislation, accusing opposition parties of taking an irresponsible position and arguing that their resistance could give technology companies more time to delay compliance.
“You are playing the game of technology companies that do not want to comply,” he said, urging opposition parties to reconsider their position before the plenary vote.
The minister said the measure is compatible with the existing European framework and rejected waiting for new European rules to be completed before acting.
He acknowledged that restricting access to social media would not be sufficient on its own, saying it should be accompanied by measures in education, mental health and sports. He cited increases in the number of psychologists and social workers in schools, while acknowledging that needs remain greater.
Digital Governance Minister Dimitris Papastergiou said responsibility for enforcing the age restriction should rest with the platforms providing the services rather than with parents.
He said Kids Wallet, a Greek digital service, is one possible means of verifying users’ ages but would not be the only option. According to Papastergiou, the information transmitted would indicate only whether a person is above or below the relevant age threshold, without disclosing their date of birth.
But the system is not yet ready to operate in full.
Papastergiou said age verification mechanisms are already used for other purposes, but their connection with social media platforms is not yet operational. That connection will need to be tested before the restrictions take effect on January 1, 2027.
He defended the government’s decision to act now, arguing that even a delay of several months carries a cost for children.
Child and health organizations back age restrictions — with conditions
A number of organizations that addressed parliamentary committees supported age restrictions as a protective measure.
The National Organization for the Prevention and Management of Addictions, the Hellenic Psychological Society and the National Bioethics and Technoethics Committee backed the principle of restricting access according to age.
“Together for Children,” an organization supporting children and families, also described the intervention as a step in the right direction, while calling for a transition period, gradual implementation and stronger support services.
The Hellenic Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Society recognized the need for intervention but stressed that a ban should form only part of a broader strategy.
The World Health Organization, without taking a position on the specific provisions of the Greek bill, said age restrictions can be useful as part of a comprehensive public-health policy, while also pointing to gaps in the available research.
The Hellenic Data Protection Authority, however, set conditions for the system, calling for age verification that does not involve generalized identification or monitoring. It also noted that the specific technical solution had not yet been submitted to it for assessment.
The Greek Ombudsman’s Office for Children was initially positive toward the measure but raised questions about proportionality and whether less restrictive measures should be considered.
The Network for Children’s Rights criticized the blanket approach, warning that banning children from mainstream platforms could push them toward less regulated or more obscure services.
The Federation of Secondary School Teachers’ Unions of Greece, or OLME, said it had reservations and no specific conference position on the bill, but stressed education and prevention as priorities.
Greece’s Cyber Crime Division likewise highlighted practical difficulties in enforcing the restrictions, including the use of VPNs, other people’s accounts and gaps in monitoring.
With Parliament due to vote Thursday, the dispute has therefore moved beyond whether children need greater protection online. The immediate questions are how the restriction will be enforced, how children’s data will be protected and whether Greece can implement the system before the January 2027 deadline.