Q COSTA RICA — Costa Rica is debating legislation that would prohibit minors under 15 from creating and maintaining accounts on certain social media platforms, intensifying a regional debate over how governments should protect minors online.
The proposal, identified as legislative file 25.805, comes amid growing concern about cyberbullying, grooming, harmful content, social pressure, and excessive digital use. Supporters argue that younger children may not yet have the maturity to recognize or manage these risks, and that social media companies should bear greater responsibility for protecting them.
Yet experts warn that establishing a minimum age would not, by itself, guarantee children’s safety. The Fundación La Casa de los Niños argues that many of the same dangers exist outside conventional social media. Children can encounter strangers, harassment, manipulative content and inappropriate material through video games, websites, messaging services and audiovisual platforms, including spaces that do not require users to create an account.
That observation goes to the heart of the debate. A ban may close one door, but it does not necessarily remove the risks on the other side.
Two legislative approaches
Costa Rica’s lawmakers are considering more than one approach to digital protection. The proposal establishing a minimum age of 15 would restrict access to accounts on designated social networks. A separate initiative, previously discussed in the Legislative Assembly, would prohibit social media accounts for children under 14 while imposing additional obligations on platforms and families.
That second proposal would require parental controls for younger users, prohibit personalized advertising aimed at minors and demand stronger age-verification systems for adolescents between 14 and 18. It would also seek to disable features associated with compulsive use, including infinite scrolling, autoplay and recommendation systems driven primarily by user engagement, according to Infobae.
These details reveal an important shift in the policy discussion. The question is no longer only whether children should be allowed to access social media. It is also whether platforms should be required to change the systems that keep users online, target them with advertising and recommend content.
The enforcement problem
The practical challenge is age verification. Any law based on a fixed age threshold would need a reliable way to determine who is using a service. Requiring official identification could create new privacy concerns, while weaker systems could be easily bypassed.
Young users may also turn to false birth dates, shared accounts, virtual private networks or less-regulated services. If access is pushed underground, parents and guardians may have less visibility into what their children are doing online.
That concern has appeared in international discussions. Experts cited by Infobae have warned that prohibition can make risks less visible rather than eliminating them. Adolescents who are blocked from mainstream platforms may seek alternative services or use devices without adult supervision.
The issue is especially difficult because digital spaces are not neatly separated. A child may move from a social network to a multiplayer game, a private messaging group, a livestreaming service or a website with embedded social features. A law aimed at a list of named platforms could quickly become outdated as companies adjust their products or users migrate elsewhere.
Protection requires more than a ban
The Fundación La Casa de los Niños has called for a broader strategy combining regulation, digital education, family support and corporate accountability. That approach recognizes that children need more than an access restriction. They need help identifying manipulation, misinformation, scams and abusive behavior, as well as clear ways to report harm and obtain assistance.
Families also need support. Parents are often expected to monitor online activity even though platforms change rapidly and their safety tools vary widely. Effective policy would need to give caregivers practical guidance while respecting adolescents’ privacy and growing independence.
The responsibility of technology companies is another central issue. Platforms design the recommendation systems, notifications and advertising models that shape how minors experience the internet. Age limits may restrict who enters, but they do not automatically make the environment safer for those who remain.
A broader regional forum held in Costa Rica reached a similar conclusion. Experts from Panama, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic and Ecuador called for an inclusive debate involving children and adolescents, families, governments and technology companies. They also emphasized that rules should account for differences in users’ circumstances, abilities and access to support.
A measure that may help—but cannot solve the whole problem
A minimum-age rule could still have value. It might delay children’s entry into platforms designed around engagement and provide a legal basis for demanding stronger safeguards from companies. It could also give parents and schools a clearer standard to follow.
But its success would depend on how it is implemented, enforced and combined with other measures. Restrictions that are easy to evade may create a false sense of security. Rules that rely on intrusive identification systems could threaten privacy. Policies that focus only on access may leave untouched the algorithms, business models and forms of abuse that create many of the dangers in the first place.
Research suggests that restrictions can reduce certain harms while displacing others. Some young people may move toward more private or difficult-to-monitor spaces, while children with stronger family support and better digital skills may benefit more than those without them.
Costa Rica’s debate therefore reflects a larger policy choice. Legislators can present a ban as a clear response to public anxiety, but protecting minors requires a system that is harder to summarize: age-appropriate design, enforceable corporate duties, privacy safeguards, digital education, family guidance and accessible support when abuse occurs.
The proposed age limit may become one part of that system. It is unlikely to be enough on its own.