The KIDS Act protects children. Who explains it to them?

In September the Commission proposed the EU KIDS Act. Since 2 October it has been asking children, parents, teachers and platforms for feedback. The consultation is open until 26 November.

The content, in short. No social media accounts under 13. Between 13 and 15, limited accounts, set up by a parent, with a maximum of one hour a day. From 15, accounts of their own, but on services that must be safe. Self-declared age is no longer enough. No infinite scroll without breaks, no notifications built to pull the child back, no streaks. Recommendations optimised for safety, not engagement. Fines of up to 6% of worldwide turnover.

It is a strong proposal. I think it goes in the right direction. And that is exactly why it is worth looking at what is missing.

The burden has shifted

The sentence that matters came from Ursula von der Leyen: «it is for platforms to show they are safe by design».

This is not a detail. For twenty years we asked families to defend themselves: read the settings, switch on the filters, keep checking. Now it is whoever designs the environment who must prove that the environment does not work against the people using it.

This is exactly the reversal of the burden I propose in Habeas Mentem. When a decision passes through a designed environment, it should be the designer who proves it was not built against the person. The KIDS Act applies this principle to minors. It is a step I did not expect to see this soon.

Protecting is not the same as making people understand

But there is a gap. In the Commission’s FAQ, which are long and detailed, I find ages, verification, default settings, design bans. I do not find a single line about one thing: that the child understands.

Understands why a video is being suggested. What happens when they accept a contact. Why the app asks them to prove their age. What that one-hour limit means.

The proposal treats the minor as someone to protect. Rightly so. But a twelve-year-old is not only a person to keep out of the maze. They are also a person learning to find their way. If at 15 they open their own account without ever having understood how the things they use work, we have pushed the problem back three years. We have not solved it.

There is a subtler risk too. A protection nobody understands is experienced as an obstacle. And at twelve, obstacles get worked around: an older brother’s account, a friend’s phone, a less supervised service. The rule that is not understood is the first one to be evaded.

I see this every time we work on Fammi capire!, the comics of Il mondo delle domande for children aged 7 to 10. Children do not ask for simpler rules. They ask why. And when the answer is well built, they understand it perfectly. Clarity, not simplicity.

Three things I would add

If I were answering the consultation, this is what I would write.

1. A duty to explain, matched to age. Every limit, every default setting, every verification request should come with an explanation the recipient can understand. Not a privacy notice for parents. An explanation for the child.
2. Understanding is tested, not presumed. The largest platforms will have to submit a compliance plan checked by independent auditors. That plan should also contain evidence: did a sample of children actually understand? This is not science fiction. At the Neuro Legal Cortex lab we already measure how hard it is to read a legal text. With children, simpler methods are enough: questions, tasks, observation.
3. The parent as translator, not just controller. The parental tools in the proposal are there to limit. They should also help explain: show parents what their child sees and why, so they can talk about it together.

For businesses the practical advice is the same as always. Do not wait for the final text. Anyone designing an experience for young users today can already ask whether an eleven-year-old would understand every screen. If the answer is no, the problem is not the child.