Meta came under heavy criticism during a public hearing organised by the European Parliament’s Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) on the protection of minors online, on Wednesday 24 June. MEPs pointed in particular to the platform’s algorithms and insufficient checks to preventing minors from being exposed to harmful content.
Tara Hopkins, Meta’s Global Director of Public Policy, argued that the company had invested “billions of dollars” to make its platforms safer for teenagers, also with many protective functionalities activated “by default” on teenagers’ accounts.
“Personalisation is one of our most powerful tools for protecting young people”, she maintained, rejecting the idea of banning social networks for minors in view of the “limited” results seen in Australia. “How can a person’s age be determined reliably online?” she asked, arguing in favour of age verification at the level of app stores and for minors’ downloads to be subject to parental approval.
MEPs challenge Meta’s arguments. “Can you not develop algorithms that protect our minors? You are using tools that do not work”, said Pablo Arias Echeverría (EPP, Spanish). He supported the introduction of “truly effective age verification systems”.
Laura Ballarín (S&D, Spanish) said that she had created a fake Instagram account while pretending to be a girl under 13, “without any checks”, and argued in favour of introducing a minimum digital age at European level as well as truly effective age verification mechanisms.
The Chair of the IMCO Committee, Anna Cavazzini (Greens/EFA, German), asked Meta to confirm that the platform was not using any data from other services to personalise content and advertising, especially as regards minors. “That is a very technical question”, replied the company’s representative.
Industry and civil society divided over a European minimum age. “Banning young people from accessing online spaces infringes their right to information”, warned Christian Cirhigiri, from the Centre for Democracy and Technology Europe (CDT Europe).
Ben Brake, Director General of DOT Europe, which represents Facebook, TikTok, Apple and Google among others, rejected a general ban on smartphones or social networks for minors, and argued for evidence-based legislation, recalling that several of its members are already testing the European age verification application.
Representing the Belgian movement KidsUnplugged, its founder, Lies Craeynest, who campaigns against the use of smartphones by children under 14, argued in favour of introducing a minimum age of 16 for access to social networks, denouncing the “commercialisation of children”.
Jan Penfrat, Senior Policy Advisor at European Digital Rights (EDRi), criticised the weak enforcement of the Digital Services Act (DSA) to protect minors, while rejecting a general ban on social networks: “Banning smartphones at school may be a good idea, but that has nothing to do with banning the opening of an account on a social network”.
Future Digital Fairness Act expected to fill gaps. Urs Buscke, Senior Legal Officer at the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC), called for an “ambitious” Digital Fairness Actcovering problems that go beyond platforms alone.
“We will not stop at a simple age barrier or an age verification application”, assured Renate Nikolay, Deputy Director-General of DG CNECT. She said that the Commission was also examining account settings, recommendation systems and addictive design mechanisms, notably in the light of the proceedings launched against Meta (see EUROPE 13859/5) and TikTok (see EUROPE 13803/3). She also considered Meta’s proposal to transfer all these responsibilities to app stores to be “a little too easy”.
Hubert Gambs, Deputy Director-General of DG Justice and Consumers, confirmed that the Commission intends to “fill the remaining gaps” in the future Digital Fairness Act, notably by examining whether certain unfair personalisation practices currently covered by the DSA should be extended to actors other than platforms. He also said that, as part of the forthcoming revision of the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network (CPC) Regulation, the Commission was examining the possibility of introducing binding deadlines for investigations as well as granting direct enforcement powers to the Commission for the most important cases. (see EUROPE 13865/14). (Original version in French by Ana Pisonero Hernández)