The Psychology of Prohibition: France Bans Social Media for Teens Under 15

The Law and What It Actually Does

On July 21, France's parliament passed a law banning children under the age of 15 from accessing social media, the first such restriction any EU country has enshrined in national legislation.[^1] The Senate adopted the measure 243 to 2; the National Assembly followed a few hours later. Its central provision bars minors under 15 from accessing "an online social network service." Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat are the platforms expected to fall under it, though lawmakers left the exact list undefined. Wikipedia, other online encyclopedias, open-source software, and educational platforms are carved out.[^1]

Enforcement comes in two stages. Age checks apply to new accounts starting September 1; accounts already held by users under 15 have until January 1, 2027, before they're shut down. A separate provision widens France's phone ban in middle schools to cover high schools too, beginning in the 2026 school year.[^1]

"France is leading the way in Europe by becoming the first country to establish a 'digital age of majority' to better protect our children online," said Anne Le Hénanff, France's minister delegate for digital sovereignty, after the vote.[^1] Roughly 15 European countries are reportedly weighing a similar standard, and Greece has confirmed it will adopt the French model. France's law makes it the first EU member state to set a blanket age floor for social media, following Australia, which set its own minimum at 16 in December 2025 — the two countries furthest along in treating adolescent social media access as a matter of public law rather than private parenting.[^1]

The mechanism is straightforward: platforms must offer at least two age-verification methods and bear responsibility for compliance. The civil liberties concern is just as straightforward. Verifying that someone is under 15 requires checking everyone's age, since a platform has no way to know in advance who's a minor.

What Prohibition Does to Behavior

The record on prohibition as a public health tool is mixed. When the United States banned alcohol from 1920 to 1933, consumption fell sharply at first, to roughly 30 percent of pre-Prohibition levels, then climbed back to 60 to 70 percent of those levels within a few years as bootlegging networks matured — infrastructure that outlasted the ban itself, according to economists Jeffrey Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, who reconstructed consumption trends from mortality and arrest data.[^5] Tobacco advertising bans in Europe correlated with measurable declines in adolescent smoking uptake, though those bans operated alongside sustained cultural shifts, tax policy, and school-based education. The pattern across both cases is consistent: prohibition shrinks a behavior's surface area without eliminating the underlying appetite. It changes the friction, not the desire.

This distinction between friction and desire is where the psychology gets interesting. Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University whose work on adolescent mental health has shaped much of the current debate, argues in The Anxious Generation that smartphone-based social media arrived in adolescent life before anyone had studied its developmental consequences. He points to a measurable rise in anxiety, depression, and self-harm rates among girls beginning around 2012, the year a majority of American 12-year-olds first owned a smartphone.[^2] Haidt's argument is causal, not merely correlational, and it has drawn both support and challenge from developmental researchers. The French government's framing tracks his position: the law treats social media as a harm vector, for addiction, bullying, and abuse, rather than as a morally neutral tool that happens to be misused.

The trouble is that Haidt's own prescription leans on collective action, not individual prohibition. He argues the problem isn't that any one child is online, but that most children are, which creates a social trap: no single parent can protect a child by keeping them off Instagram if every peer is on it. The French law addresses that trap by making the restriction universal and legally binding. Whether it actually changes the social math depends on enforcement, and enforcement here requires verifying everyone's identity, a real civil liberties cost.

The Deeper Question: What Is Being Protected, and in Whom

The psychology of habit formation offers one useful premise here: interventions that remove a stimulus tend to work best before the person subject to them has built a stable pattern around it. Adolescent brain development supports that premise. The prefrontal cortex, which evaluates long-term consequences and regulates impulsive behavior, keeps maturing into the mid-twenties. The dopaminergic reward circuitry, by contrast, is fully operational and highly sensitive during early adolescence. Social media platforms are built to exploit that gap: variable-ratio reinforcement schedules, the unpredictability of likes, comments, and notifications, produce the same neurological response pattern that drives slot-machine use. Gabor Maté, in In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts, traces addictive behavior to the intersection of neurological vulnerability and environmental availability.[^3] Adolescence is the period of peak neurological vulnerability. The French law, at its most defensible, removes availability before the habit sets.

The Catholic Christian anthropology that grounds Presence+'s framework locates the same problem in different but compatible terms. Aquinas distinguishes concupiscence, a structural feature of fallen human nature in which appetite tends to override reason, from the acquired habits, virtues or vices, that reinforce or resist that tendency over time.[^6] The key insight is developmental: habits form most powerfully during the period when reason has not yet fully established governance over appetite. A thirteen-year-old on TikTok isn't simply making a free choice about entertainment; she's undergoing habit formation in a designed environment that systematically trains attention toward passive, reactive, and socially comparative behaviors. Read through this lens, the law is less a punishment than a recognition that external structure can scaffold internal development that hasn't happened yet.

Vitz, Nordling, and Titus, writing in A Catholic Christian Meta-Model of the Person, ground this developmental logic in the unity of body and soul: what the body repeatedly does, the soul becomes disposed toward, not as metaphor but as a claim about how habit formation works at the level of the whole person.[^4] The French parliament's move implicitly accepts this claim without using its vocabulary. What it can't answer is whether prohibition, on its own, does enough.

What Prohibition Cannot Do

The most honest reading of the French law is that it creates a condition, not a formation. It removes one category of stimulus during a window when habit formation is most consequential, but it doesn't install the competing habits, attention, boredom-tolerance, face-to-face relational skill, that would make the space it clears productive rather than merely empty. A 14-year-old who can't open Instagram at 9 p.m. may read, talk to a sibling, or sit in silence long enough to think. She may also find a VPN, use a friend's account, or migrate to a platform the law's undefined scope hasn't reached yet. The law's drafters left the precise list of covered platforms undefined, which means the boundary will be contested in administrative and judicial proceedings for years.

That's the limit of prohibition as a child-protection strategy, and it's where the work of formation begins. The evidence from tobacco and alcohol policy suggests prohibition holds up best when it operates alongside cultural reinforcement, when the ban reads to the people it governs as an expression of a shared value rather than an external imposition. The French government's framing of social media as a threat to "digital sovereignty," in Le Hénanff's phrase, is a political argument, not a formative one. It may produce compliance without producing the internal architecture that makes compliance unnecessary.

Parents, educators, and the clinicians and pastoral workers who accompany adolescents through these years face a more granular version of the same question. The law changes the default, and changing the default matters: behavioral economics has documented the power of defaults, since a behavior that requires effort to initiate rather than effort to refuse sees substantially lower uptake even among motivated users. But a changed default is still a default. The formation required to help a young person understand why the limit serves their flourishing, and to develop the interior governance to hold it over time, runs deeper than any parliamentary vote can reach. That formation is the work France's legislators have, by their own account, only begun.

References

[^1]: Tadié, Solène. "France Becomes First European Country to Ban Social Media for Minors Under 15." National Catholic Register (a service of EWTN News), July 22, 2026. https://www.ncregister.com/cna/france-bans-social-media-for-minors-under-15-to2rzega

[^2]: Haidt, Jonathan. The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness. Penguin Press, 2024.

[^3]: Maté, Gabor. In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction. Knopf Canada, 2008.

[^4]: Vitz, Paul C., William Nordling, and Craig Steven Titus. A Catholic Christian Meta-Model of the Person: Integration with Psychology and Mental Health Practice. Divine Mercy University Press, 2020.

[^5]: Miron, Jeffrey A., and Jeffrey Zwiebel. "Alcohol Consumption During Prohibition." NBER Working Paper No. 3675, 1991.

[^6]: Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae, I-II, qq. 82-83 (on concupiscence and original sin) and qq. 49-54 (on habits in general).