Brussels is reported to be preparing a sharper Digital Services Act case over children’s safety on Facebook and Instagram The European Commission is reportedly preparing to escalate its investigation into…
Brussels is reported to be preparing a sharper Digital Services Act case over children’s safety on Facebook and Instagram
The European Commission is reportedly preparing to escalate its investigation into Meta over whether Facebook and Instagram use design features that keep children online in ways that may harm their well-being, widening one of Brussels’ most closely watched child-safety cases under the Digital Services Act.
The reported move, first attributed to Bloomberg and carried by European technology media, has not yet been formally announced by the Commission. The case is therefore still at a sensitive stage: regulators have opened proceedings, but any new preliminary findings would still give Meta the right to respond before a final decision.
At issue is whether platform design itself can become a regulatory problem. The Commission has previously said it is concerned that Facebook and Instagram systems, including algorithms, may stimulate behavioural addictions in children and create so-called rabbit-hole effects, where young users are drawn into prolonged streams of content.
A child-safety case with wider reach
The Commission opened formal proceedings against Meta in May 2024 under the Digital Services Act, focusing on the protection of minors on Facebook and Instagram. Regulators also raised concerns about Meta’s age-assurance and verification methods.
If Brussels now moves toward additional preliminary findings on addictive design, the case would shift further from content moderation alone to the architecture of attention: infinite scrolling, recommendation systems, autoplay, notifications and other features that can shape how long children stay online.
That distinction matters. Europe’s digital debate is increasingly asking whether online harm is caused only by individual posts and accounts, or also by business models that reward prolonged engagement. For children, the question is especially urgent because the same tools that support communication, creativity and learning can also intensify exposure to harassment, harmful content and compulsive use.
What is confirmed, and what is not
So far, the confirmed facts are narrower than the political debate. The Commission has formally opened proceedings against Meta over minors’ protection. It also issued a separate preliminary finding in April 2026 that Meta may have failed to prevent children under 13 from accessing Instagram and Facebook effectively.
The reported addictive-design escalation has not yet been published as an official Commission decision. That means the legal framing, evidence and timing remain uncertain. Meta would be able to inspect the Commission’s file, answer the allegations and propose remedies before any final breach finding or fine.
Under the DSA, very large online platforms can face penalties of up to 6% of global annual turnover for confirmed infringements. But the more immediate effect may be behavioural: pressure on platforms to redesign products, strengthen age checks and show that risk assessments are more than paperwork.
Europe’s online-safety dilemma
The Meta case lands in a wider European argument over children’s rights online. Governments are weighing age limits, parental controls, privacy-preserving age verification and stronger platform duties. Civil society groups warn that blunt bans can push young people into less visible spaces, while child-protection advocates argue that companies have moved too slowly to reduce foreseeable harms.
The European Times has previously reported on how Spain’s scrutiny of major platforms over AI-generated child abuse images reflects a broader European shift toward treating online safety as a systems issue. The Meta proceedings fit that pattern: regulators are not only looking at illegal content, but at the design choices that decide what users see, how often they return and how easily young people can leave.
For Brussels, the challenge is to protect children without building intrusive surveillance into everyday internet use. Effective age assurance must be accurate and robust, but also non-discriminatory and respectful of privacy. Product design must reduce risk, but not erase young people’s legitimate rights to participation, information and expression.
The next step will be decisive. If the Commission issues new preliminary findings, the case could become a landmark in Europe’s attempt to regulate the attention economy. If it does not, the underlying question will remain: whether platforms built for maximum engagement can be made compatible with children’s rights, mental health and digital dignity.
