Which countries mandate age or identity verification for social media and messaging apps?
Executive summary
A growing number of countries and many U.S. states now require some form of age or identity verification for social media or for access to age‑restricted online content: Australia’s law will force platforms to block or deactivate accounts for users under 16 from 10 December 2025 and imposes verification obligations on covered platforms [1] [2]. Multiple European governments (France, Spain, Italy, Denmark, Greece and others) are testing age‑verification apps or pushing higher minimum ages, and dozens of U.S. states have passed or proposed age‑verification laws that typically require platforms to verify ages or obtain parental consent [3] [4] [5].
1. What governments are already mandating verification — the headline list
Australia has the clearest nationwide mandate: from 10 December 2025 social media platforms that meet the law’s criteria must take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under 16 from creating or keeping an account, which in practice requires some form of age verification [1] [2]. In Europe several national governments — notably France, Denmark, Norway, Italy and others — are moving toward legal minimum ages and testing a shared or national age‑verification mechanism; the European Parliament and some member states have pushed for harmonised minimums (13–16) and pilot age‑verification apps [6] [7] [4]. In Southeast Asia, Malaysia has announced plans to bar under‑16s from social media from 2026 and said it will use electronic identity checks; Reuters reported Malaysia is studying the Australian model [8] [9]. In the United States, many state laws require platforms to verify user ages or obtain parental consent — Tennessee, Mississippi and Florida are cited as laws in effect or enforced, and a suite of other states have passed or proposed age‑assurance statutes [4] [10] [5].
2. How the rules differ — age bans, parental consent and “verify all users” approaches
Laws vary: some set absolute bans for young users (Australia’s under‑16 rule; proposed Malaysia ban), others raise the legal age for consenting to data processing (EU member state reforms) or require parental consent for under‑age accounts (France’s and some U.S. state approaches) [1] [7] [4]. U.S. state laws often require platforms to verify the age of account creators and to obtain verifiable parental consent for minors; several states also limit features for minors or ban accounts under a specific age [5] [11]. Some proposals and laws demand verification of “all account holders” to enforce age gates — a broad approach that critics say creates collateral burdens on adults [12].
3. Technical routes to compliance — what “verification” can mean in practice
Governments and platforms envisage multiple methods: government ID checks, digital ID wallets, third‑party age assurance services, phone‑based checks, and privacy‑preserving solutions such as attribute‑based proofs that confirm “over X years” without sharing exact birthdates. The EU has trialled an age‑verification mobile app concept, and vendors like Yoti and identity platforms advertise multiple verification options for platforms to use [7] [13]. Reuters and eSafety note platforms are being given a menu of methods rather than a single mandated technology in Australia [2] [1].
4. Legal and practical pushback — constitutional and privacy tensions
Several U.S. laws have faced legal challenges and injunctions; some were blocked or delayed pending court review, and courts are wrestling with free speech and anonymity questions. Legal analysts argue higher courts may now be more receptive to age‑verification laws framed as protecting children, but outcomes remain unsettled [14] [15] [12]. Privacy advocates and civil liberties groups warn mandatory identity checks risk chilling adults’ speech and concentrate sensitive data with platforms or third parties; reporting shows companies are weighing technical designs to reduce data exposure, but details and standards remain uneven [12] [13].
5. The geopolitical pattern — who’s leading, who’s following
Australia’s law is the most far‑reaching operational mandate with imminent enforcement [2] [1]. European states and EU institutions are coordinating pilots and proposals that could produce cross‑border tools or minimum ages [6] [7]. Several South and Southeast Asian governments (Malaysia, Indonesia previously signalled measures) are adopting similar models or study them [8] [3]. In the U.S., a patchwork of state laws—dozens of measures—has created uneven obligations for global platforms, with Tennessee, Mississippi and Florida among the most cited states with effective rules [4] [10] [11].
6. Limitations, gaps and what sources do not say
Available sources document many enacted and proposed laws and list countries testing tools, but they do not provide a fully exhaustive, up‑to‑the‑minute global roster or the complete technical standards governments will accept; nor do the cited pieces give uniform details on enforcement thresholds, exact verification methods allowed, or the final judicial outcomes for every contested U.S. state law [4] [2] [15]. For a definitive, current list by jurisdiction, consult the primary legislation and regulator guidance in each country.
Takeaway: age‑ and identity‑verification requirements are no longer theoretical. National laws from Australia to parts of Europe, plans in Malaysia, and many U.S. state statutes now force platforms to build or buy age‑assurance systems — and policymakers, courts and privacy groups are still fighting over how intrusive, accurate and universal those systems should be [1] [6] [4].