Summary

• Greece approved the under-15 social media restriction on 23 October, with implementation intended from 1 January 2027.
• The voted bill identifies Gov.gr Wallet and Kids Wallet as possible age-verification methods, but does not expressly reproduce the standalone platform verification duty described in earlier government statements.
• The National Council for Radio and Television and the Hellenic Data Protection Authority are designated oversight bodies; the legislation remains subject to publication in the Government Gazette.

The Greek Parliament has approved legislation intended to prevent children under 15 from accessing social networking services, adding Greece to the European countries pursuing national age restrictions while questions remain over how platforms will be expected to enforce them.

Lawmakers approved the bill during a parliamentary session that continued into 23 October, with the measure scheduled to take effect on 1 January 2027. Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis’s New Democracy party supported the legislation, while opposition parties either voted against it or abstained.

The measure establishes a minimum age for access to covered online social networking services and identifies government-supported digital identity tools that may be used to verify age.

However, the wording of the voted bill requires a distinction from earlier government statements. The October policy announcement described a clear obligation for platforms to implement reliable verification, but analysis of the legislative text approved by parliament indicates that this separate duty was not expressly included in the final provisions considered by lawmakers.

The parliamentary record also continued to list the measure as awaiting publication in the Government Gazette when checked on 26 October. The approved legislation and its intended implementation date are therefore established, but the final published legal text and detailed enforcement arrangements should not be treated as already operational.

Access rules differ from verification duties

Setting a minimum age for a digital service establishes who is permitted to use it. Ensuring that a platform can determine whether someone meets that threshold is a separate technical and legal problem.

Earlier Greek government materials described a requirement for providers to use appropriate, proportionate and reliable age-verification methods. Those statements helped frame the policy as a shift in responsibility from parents towards the companies operating social networking services.

The wording examined in the parliamentary bill establishes the access restriction and states that existing digital tools may be used for verification. It does not expressly reproduce the separate platform duty presented in the government’s earlier publicity.

That omission creates uncertainty about which actions are required directly by the new Greek legislation and which would instead depend on existing European digital services obligations or subsequent regulatory decisions.

It would be premature to conclude that platforms face no applicable age-related responsibilities. The EU Digital Services Act already includes obligations concerning the protection of minors using online platforms, while separate privacy rules affect how personal information can be collected and processed.

Nevertheless, an existing general obligation to protect minors should not be described as identical to a new, explicit national requirement to verify the age of every account holder.

The distinction will matter when authorities begin assessing compliance because enforcement decisions require a clear legal basis and must identify the particular obligations alleged to have been breached.

Digital wallets offer a possible mechanism

Greece has developed age-checking capabilities through Gov.gr Wallet and Kids Wallet, which are intended to allow selected attributes to be confirmed without routinely disclosing a person’s complete identity to an online service.

The legislation identifies these technologies as possible verification methods rather than mandating that every service use one government application.

An age credential could, in principle, confirm whether a user meets a required threshold without supplying a full date of birth, address or other identity information to the platform.

That model may reduce unnecessary disclosure, but its privacy characteristics depend on how the credential is issued, transmitted and checked, and whether repeated verification attempts can be linked to a particular person.

Age checks also introduce operational questions for users who lack suitable identity documents, share devices or encounter technical problems with an authentication service.

Providers need to consider how legitimate users can challenge an incorrect result and how a verification process can be made accessible without weakening its reliability.

Greece’s legislative text also uses a birth-year rule under which 1 January is treated as the relevant birthday for people born within the same calendar year. This can affect the point at which an individual becomes eligible under the age restriction.

The rule simplifies the calculation of eligibility, but it means that access is not necessarily determined by the individual’s actual birthday.

Such details can have practical consequences for digital identity systems, which must apply the legal eligibility test rather than assume that an ordinary date-of-birth calculation always produces the same outcome.

Regulators face overlapping responsibilities

The voted provisions assign supervision to Greece’s National Council for Radio and Television and the Hellenic Data Protection Authority.

Those bodies have different regulatory responsibilities, creating a need to coordinate questions about the operation of social networking services with concerns about the lawful and proportionate processing of personal information.

The wider European framework adds another layer. Major social networking services operate across national boundaries, often providing the same technical platform to users in several member states.

Under the Digital Services Act, responsibility for enforcing different obligations is divided between national authorities and the European Commission, including the Commission’s role in supervising designated very large online platforms.

Whether an alleged breach can be pursued through existing digital services powers will depend on the relevant legal provisions and the circumstances of the case.

The Greek bill does not establish a wholly separate schedule of fines specifically for the new age restriction. Existing legislation contains substantial penalties for certain digital services infringements, but those cannot automatically be applied to every suspected instance of underage access.

Government statements have emphasised the possibility of working through European regulatory mechanisms. The effectiveness of that approach will depend on how national restrictions interact with obligations already established under EU law.

Parliament divided over the approach

The legislation passed without broad opposition support, reflecting disagreement over whether a general prohibition is the most proportionate means of protecting younger users.

The centre-left PASOK party proposed a different arrangement under which children below 13 would be excluded while 13- and 14-year-olds could access selected services through restricted accounts involving parental supervision.

That alternative was not adopted. Other opposition parties questioned the practical enforceability of the government’s proposal and the possibility that a blanket restriction could limit access to beneficial online activities.

The government argues that intervention is necessary because social networking services can be designed to sustain prolonged engagement through personalisation, continuous feeds and other features intended to encourage repeated use.

Ministers have linked the proposal to concerns about sleep, concentration, mental health and exposure to unsuitable material.

Those concerns have informed legislation in several countries, but the effect of a particular prohibition cannot be established from the existence of risks associated with online services alone.

Any assessment of effectiveness will need to consider actual changes in children’s behaviour, the possibility of migration towards other services and whether access restrictions produce unintended effects.

Young people may use online communities for social contact, education and access to information, making the scope of the restriction and the availability of alternative services relevant to the wider policy debate.

Implementation remains the decisive test

The government intends the new restriction to apply from 1 January 2027, creating a relatively short period for authorities and technology providers to prepare.

However, the relationship between the approved access prohibition, age-verification technology and enforceable platform duties requires clarity before a reliable assessment of compliance is possible.

The final published statute will be particularly important because the text may undergo technical corrections before publication, while later regulatory guidance could provide additional detail about the practical interpretation of the measure.

Service providers also need to establish which applications and functions fall within the covered category of social networking services. Modern platforms combine public posting, private messaging, video distribution and other features that do not always fit neatly into a single classification.

Those distinctions affect whether a service is covered by the age restriction and how its operator should respond when users have different entitlements.

European developments may further influence the framework as EU institutions examine additional measures concerning children’s access to digital services.

Greece’s legislation reflects a determination to introduce national restrictions ahead of a harmonised European regime, but the practical outcome will depend on enforceable rules, proportionate verification and cooperation between regulators.

Parliament has approved the policy and identified an intended start date. Publication of the final legal text, clarification of platform obligations and the first enforcement decisions will determine how the prohibition operates beyond its initial legislative commitment.