The European Union is preparing a proposed Kids Act that could change how young players create accounts and use online features in games. The planned rules would cover social media, some online gaming platforms and AI chatbot services, combining age verification requirements with parental consent, supervision tools and wider obligations intended to reduce abuse and addictive behavior.

The proposal is not simply about whether a child can launch a game. Its likely impact is on the connected layer around games: personal accounts, chat, social systems, friend lists, communities and services that use conversational AI. For players and parents, that distinction matters. A single-player game played offline is a very different regulatory question from an online service that asks someone to make a personal profile, communicate with strangers or spend long periods in a continually updated environment.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen described the intended direction in a Wednesday speech:

“No social media under the age of 13. No personal account under the age of 15. Europe has the power to act. It is us who decide the rules, not big tech.”

What the draft proposes

The Kids Act is expected to be published Thursday. Based on the reported draft, children under 13 would be able to access covered services only under a parent’s supervision. People aged 13 through 15 would need parental consent to create accounts, alongside parental controls and other restrictions such as time limits.

The age bands are important because they establish different expectations rather than one blanket rule for every minor:

  • Under 13: access to covered services would require parental supervision.
  • Ages 13 to 15: creating an account would require parental consent, with controls and restrictions including possible time limits.
  • Service providers: social platforms, online gaming services and AI chatbots would need safeguards addressing abuse and addictive behavior.

Not every game is necessarily in scope in the same way. The available draft details refer to some gaming platforms and to online gaming services, rather than declaring an all-purpose ban on video games for children. That wording leaves major practical questions for the eventual published text: which kinds of gaming products qualify, how a platform is defined, and whether obligations change based on a game’s account, communication or social features.

Those details will determine whether the rules chiefly affect large platform ecosystems or also reach games with modest online functions. For now, it is more accurate to view the proposal as a potentially broad child-safety framework for connected digital services than as a rule aimed at games in isolation.

Why online games are part of the discussion

Modern games often blend play with systems that look and operate like social platforms. A player may create an account, build a public profile, add friends, join a group, exchange messages or interact in shared spaces. These features can be central to the experience, but they also create the same questions about a young user’s identity, contact with others and time spent online that policymakers are applying to conventional social media.

The proposed obligations also point to a regulatory focus beyond account sign-up. Providers would be required to introduce safeguards intended to protect children from abuse and addictive behavior. “Safeguards” is a broad term in the reported draft details, so it should not be read as a confirmed list of specific design changes. Still, it signals that compliance may involve more than an age gate at the front door.

For gaming services, the operational challenge could be connecting the age and consent status of an account to appropriate settings. If an account belongs to a user aged 13 to 15, a service may need a reliable way to record parental approval and apply the relevant controls. A time limit, for example, is a restriction on use over a period, not just a pop-up reminder displayed once during registration.

This could add friction to account creation, particularly where a game relies on a parent or guardian completing a separate step. But from the proposal’s perspective, that friction is purposeful: it creates a point where an adult is involved before a younger user establishes a personal account on a covered service.

Age verification is the technical pressure point

Covered companies would have to verify users’ ages through an official age-verification app. Age verification means checking that a person falls within a stated age range, rather than merely asking them to enter a birth date. The difference is substantial. A self-reported date can be entered by anyone; a verification system is meant to provide a more dependable confirmation.

The report does not explain the app’s full design, how it would be rolled out, or exactly what information individual gaming and social services would receive. Those unanswered questions will be consequential for both families and developers. Any system must work well enough to enforce the rule while also fitting into the account systems of many distinct services.

That puts age assurance at the center of the proposal. Parental consent and age-based controls only function as intended if a service can first determine which account category applies. In practical terms, a company would need to know whether a user is under 13, between 13 and 15, or older before it can decide whether supervision, consent or standard account treatment is required.

For large game ecosystems, compliance could become part of the broader account-management process. That does not mean every player will encounter identical prompts or restrictions, because the final requirements and scope remain unconfirmed. It does mean that developers and platform holders with online accounts will need to watch the final wording closely, especially when their services include messaging, community functions or chatbot integrations.

AI companions get a distinct warning

The proposal specifically addresses companies offering AI companions and chatbot services. These services would need to avoid designs that encourage unhealthy emotional attachments or expose children to harmful interactions.

An AI chatbot is software that communicates in conversation-like exchanges. An AI companion is a chatbot-style service framed around ongoing, personal interaction. The proposal’s separate attention to companions is notable because it is concerned not only with unwanted content or misuse, but also with product design that could push a child toward an unhealthy emotional reliance on a simulated relationship.

Gaming relevance may grow wherever conversational AI is included in an online product, whether it is presented as a standalone service or built into a larger platform. The draft information does not spell out which game features count as a chatbot or companion, so it would be premature to assume that every AI-driven non-player character falls under the same treatment. The key confirmed point is that chatbot and companion providers are among the services the measure seeks to regulate.

The financial stakes for companies

Noncompliance could lead to fines of as much as 6% of a company’s global annual revenue. That maximum penalty creates a serious incentive for affected businesses to treat the Kids Act as a product-design, trust-and-safety and account-infrastructure issue rather than as a minor update to terms of service.

Global annual revenue refers to revenue generated across a company’s worldwide business, not merely the portion tied to a single country, service or game. The reported figure is a maximum potential fine, not an automatic charge. Actual enforcement processes and how penalties are calculated are not detailed in the supplied draft summary, so no conclusion can yet be drawn about what any individual company would owe.

Nonetheless, a penalty measured against global revenue raises the importance of consistent compliance across services. Companies that run social, gaming and AI offerings may have to consider how the policy applies across interconnected accounts, rather than treating each app or game as completely separate.

What players, parents and game makers should watch next

The forthcoming publication is the key next step, because the reported plan remains a draft. The final text should clarify the terms that matter most for games: which online gaming services are covered, what counts as a personal account, what supervision requires in practice, and how parental consent and time limits must be implemented.

Parents should expect the direction of travel to emphasize account oversight for younger users, particularly where games offer communication and social features. The proposal does not say that parental involvement will look identical across every covered service. Its stated aim, however, is clear: younger children should not independently use the targeted services, while teenagers below 16 would face additional account and control requirements.

For the games business, the development is another reminder that online play is also an account service. Features once treated as optional additions—social feeds, chat, community hubs and AI-assisted conversation—can determine which safeguards a product must offer. News around platform-level accounts is already relevant to players following services such as Xbox’s evolving Game Pass plans; the Kids Act proposal shows why account policy, controls and platform infrastructure are becoming increasingly important parts of the wider gaming conversation.

The proposal’s broad purpose is not difficult to identify: make major digital services take more responsibility for how children gain access and what protections apply after they do. The harder part will be turning that principle into systems that can accurately verify age, involve parents where required and protect young users without reducing the issue to a checkbox. The final Kids Act text will show how directly those requirements reach the online games people play every day.