KIDS implementation for social platforms

Account and proof workflows

Article 6 applies when a social or video service meets a listed risk trigger. It proposes independent accounts from 15 and a limited guardian-created route for ages 13–14. Those limited accounts require always-on guardian tools, a daily limit of at most one hour and guardian contact controls.

Article 29 proposes a strict certified EU age-verification route for Article 6 compliance. Other age-assurance methods may be permitted for specified safety-by-design purposes if they meet Articles 27 and 28. Keep those two use cases separate.

Recommendation and interaction design

• Prioritise explicit user preferences and disable implicit engagement-based personalisation by default.
• Do not use personal data captured outside the service in the covered recommender.
• Provide a non-profiling option and an accessible feed reset.
• Limit repeated harmful exposure and evaluate safety and mental-health-related outcomes.
• Require contact pre-approval, group agreement and accessible blocking.
• Implement private defaults and the other visibility protections in Article 12.

Provider evidence

Article 5 would require designated very large social and video platforms to submit a compliance plan and commission an independent audit. Article 5(8) expressly says the report and Commission action or inaction do not constitute a finding of compliance.

A supplier can support controls and evidence, but the service provider remains accountable. Screenshot restrictions also require realistic testing across devices; software cannot prevent someone using an external camera.

Third-party parental tools

Article 20(5) proposes interoperability for guardian tools on VLOPs, referring to relevant DMA conditions. Valvur proposes scoped interfaces for settings, contact approvals, time budgets and revocation acknowledgements.

This provision should not be described as a general entitlement to read private messages, scrape feeds or replace the recommender. Alternative clients need a specific access route and safeguards.

From proof to safer participation

The integration approach connects eligible age assurance and guardian authority to supervised modes, contact permissions, finite feed sessions and revocation. The family app can explain decisions and support appeals, while KIBI learning helps children recognise pressure that a technical gate cannot assess.

Integrate control APIs first. Broader access to feed items or message content requires separate rights and safeguards. A third-party interface cannot promise an addiction-free experience or override provider responsibility.