Children as Digital Consumers: Examining Consumer Protection Law and Data Privacy Regulations

Author: Shraddha Tak
Student, GLS University

————————————————————

💡 3 Quick Takeaways

Children face distinct risks in digital marketplaces because of their developmental vulnerabilities, limited understanding of commercial practices, and reduced control over personal data.
Regulatory frameworks such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the EU’s GDPR and Digital Services Act, and the United States’ COPPA provide important protections, but gaps remain in age verification, parental consent, and protection against manipulative design.
Effective child protection online requires more than consent and disclosure. It also requires age-appropriate design, meaningful enforcement, safeguards against behavioural profiling, and international cooperation.

Abstract

The digital environment has transformed how children communicate, shop, learn, and access entertainment. However, the legal and regulatory systems intended to protect young consumers have not always kept pace with developments in digital marketplaces. Children interact with social media platforms, mobile applications, streaming services, and e-commerce websites, often without fully understanding the commercial purposes behind these services or the implications of sharing personal information.

This article examines the legal frameworks designed to protect children as digital consumers, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the European Union’s regulatory framework, and approaches adopted in the United States and other common-law jurisdictions. It considers the effectiveness of age-verification mechanisms, parental-consent requirements, and protections against deceptive marketing, manipulative interface design, and algorithmically targeted advertising. It also examines cross-border enforcement challenges and the respective roles of industry self-regulation and government oversight. The article argues that meaningful protection requires coordinated legal, technological, and institutional measures that recognise children’s developmental needs and vulnerabilities.

Keywords: Children’s Consumer Protection, Digital Privacy and Minors, Age-Verification Mechanisms, Parental-Consent Frameworks, Unfair Commercial Practices.

I. Introduction

Children and young people use the internet extensively, yet the rules intended to ensure consumer safety have not always kept pace with digital developments. Young consumers interact daily with commercial entities through social media, mobile applications, streaming services, and e-commerce websites, often with limited awareness of the commercial purposes behind these platforms or the ways in which their data may be exploited.[1]

Many traditional legal rules were developed around agreements between adults, who are generally presumed to understand the terms to which they agree. Children, however, may struggle to understand lengthy privacy policies, identify advertising embedded within applications, or recognise how their personal information is collected, analysed, and used. At the same time, commercial actors possess sophisticated behavioural-analytics capabilities that enable highly targeted marketing.

Children’s vulnerability as consumers arises from a combination of developmental factors, limited legal capacity, and information asymmetry.[2] These characteristics raise important questions about whether existing consumer-protection and privacy frameworks provide adequate safeguards in digital environments.

This article examines the legal protection available to children online. It considers international instruments, European Union regulations, and approaches adopted in the United States and other common-law jurisdictions. It then explores key challenges concerning age verification, parental consent, commercial fairness, data privacy, and cross-border enforcement. Finally, it considers emerging issues involving artificial intelligence, immersive digital environments, and decentralised platforms.

II. Legal Status and Capacity of Child Consumers

A. Foundational Principles

Child consumers occupy a distinct legal position from adults and persons subject to guardianship. Many legal systems recognise forms of graduated capacity, under which the ability to enter into certain transactions may depend on age, maturity, the nature of the transaction, and applicable legislation.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) recognises children as rights-holders and requires State Parties to adopt appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures to implement the rights protected by the Convention.[3] This framework supports the development of legal protections that account for children’s particular circumstances.

The traditional doctrine of caveat emptor, or “buyer beware,” has also been modified by modern consumer-protection legislation. Contemporary frameworks impose obligations on traders concerning disclosure, fairness, and the treatment of vulnerable consumers. Children may require additional safeguards because they may be less able to identify misleading commercial practices or understand the consequences of digital transactions.

B. Age-Related Legal Capacity

Many jurisdictions establish eighteen as the general age of majority, although the precise rules governing contractual capacity vary. Some legal systems recognise exceptions or special rules for particular transactions and circumstances.

In contract law, agreements entered into by minors are treated differently across jurisdictions. Some systems allow minors to avoid certain contracts, while others distinguish between categories of transactions or provide specific exceptions. The applicable legal consequences therefore depend on local legislation and doctrine.[4]

Digital agreements create additional difficulties. Clicking “I accept” on a platform’s terms of service does not necessarily demonstrate that a child understood the terms or their practical consequences. The complexity of online agreements, combined with the speed and frequency of digital transactions, makes it difficult to assess whether a minor has meaningfully understood the commitment.

C. Parental Authority and Guardianship

Parental authority generally includes responsibilities concerning decisions affecting a child’s welfare, although its legal scope varies across jurisdictions. Digital commerce creates situations in which parents may have limited visibility into their children’s transactions, app usage, or disclosure of personal information.

The allocation of responsibility between parents and digital platforms remains a complex issue. Parental-consent requirements may provide an important safeguard, but their effectiveness depends on how consent is obtained, the information made available to parents, and the degree of control parents can exercise over a child’s digital activities.

III. International and Comparative Regulatory Frameworks

A. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

The CRC establishes foundational principles for the protection of children, although it does not create a detailed consumer-protection regime specifically for digital marketplaces.[5] Its recognition of children’s rights and their need for special protection has nevertheless influenced the development of national and international regulatory frameworks.

Article 16 protects children against arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy, family, home, or correspondence. Article 17 recognises the importance of children’s access to information and material from diverse sources while encouraging the development of guidelines to protect them from material injurious to their well-being.[6]

These provisions are relevant to digital privacy and commercial communication. They provide a rights-based foundation for considering how online services collect personal data, distribute content, and expose children to commercial practices.

B. European Union Framework

The European Union has developed a substantial regulatory framework addressing data protection and online-platform responsibilities.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) establishes rules governing the processing of personal data. Article 8 addresses consent in relation to information-society services offered directly to children. Where processing is based on consent, Article 8 establishes a default age of sixteen for a child’s own consent, while allowing Member States to provide for a lower age, not below thirteen. Parental authorisation is required where the child is below the applicable threshold.[7]

Article 12 requires information about data processing to be provided in a concise, transparent, intelligible, and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language. This is particularly important where the intended audience includes children.

The Digital Services Act (DSA), which became generally applicable in 2024, establishes additional obligations for online platforms. Article 28 requires platforms accessible to minors to take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure a high level of privacy, safety, and security for minors. It also prohibits platforms from presenting advertisements based on profiling using personal data when they know with reasonable certainty that the recipient is a minor. Article 25 addresses certain manipulative interface practices, while Articles 34 and 35 establish obligations concerning the assessment and mitigation of systemic risks for very large online platforms and search engines.[8]

The DSA therefore reflects a shift towards addressing risks arising from platform design and operation, rather than relying solely on individual users to identify and avoid harm.

C. United States Regulatory Approach

The United States adopts a multi-statute approach to children’s online privacy. The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) regulates the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information from children under thirteen by covered operators of websites and online services.[9]

COPPA establishes requirements concerning notice and verifiable parental consent, together with obligations relating to the handling and security of children’s personal information. Its scope, however, is directed principally at children under thirteen. Teenagers aged thirteen and above are not generally covered by COPPA’s child-specific consent requirements, although other laws and regulatory provisions may apply.

This creates a potential protection gap for teenagers, who may remain exposed to targeted advertising, behavioural analysis, and persuasive platform design. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces COPPA and may take action against operators that fail to comply with its requirements. Such enforcement, however, does not provide a general private right of action under COPPA.

D. Common-Law Jurisdictions

Common-law jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, use consumer-protection and privacy legislation to address misleading conduct, unfair commercial practices, and the handling of personal information.

The United Kingdom’s Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides consumer protections in relation to traders and consumer contracts. However, general consumer-protection rules do not necessarily address every risk arising from children’s use of digital platforms.

The United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act 2023 provides a statutory framework addressing online safety, including duties relevant to services used by children. Australia has also pursued reforms concerning online safety and privacy. The effectiveness of these approaches depends on the scope of the relevant laws, their implementation, and the resources available for enforcement.

IV. Analytical Discussion: Core Protection Challenges

A. Age-Verification Mechanisms

Effective age assurance is important where access to a service or the processing of personal data depends on a user’s age. Available methods include document-based verification, knowledge-based checks, and biometric age estimation.[10]

Each method has limitations. Document-based verification may exclude users who lack appropriate identification and can require platforms to handle sensitive information. Knowledge-based checks may create privacy and accessibility concerns. Biometric age estimation may produce inaccurate results and raise questions about the collection and processing of biometric data.

These concerns create a tension between reliable age assurance and data minimisation. Collecting extensive identifying information to establish age may itself create privacy risks. At the same time, weak verification mechanisms may allow children to bypass age restrictions by entering false dates of birth or using adults’ accounts.

The GDPR’s data-minimisation principle and the DSA’s obligations concerning the protection of minors must therefore be considered alongside the practical effectiveness of age-assurance methods. The legal framework does not eliminate the technical and operational difficulties of determining a user’s age while collecting as little additional information as possible.

B. Parental Consent and Authority in Digital Contexts

Parental consent is an important component of child-protection frameworks, including COPPA and the GDPR. However, digital services operate continuously, and children may access applications, make purchases, or share personal information without their parents’ direct involvement.

Consent mechanisms commonly rely on actions such as email verification or password entry. Such steps may establish that a parent has interacted with a service, but they do not necessarily demonstrate that the parent understands the extent of the data processing or the commercial consequences of consent.

Repeated requests for permission may also produce consent fatigue, encouraging parents to grant permissions without carefully examining each request. In addition, a parent’s account may be linked to a child’s account or payment method without providing meaningful control over the platform’s design or data practices.

These challenges raise questions about how parental authority should operate in digital environments and how platforms can make consent more informed and effective.

C. Protection Against Unfair Commercial Practices

Traditional consumer-protection rules seek to prevent misleading conduct and unfair commercial practices. Digital platforms, however, may use design features that influence users’ decisions in ways that are difficult to identify.

“Dark patterns” are interface designs that steer users towards particular choices or make alternative choices more difficult. Examples include making the “Accept All” option prominent while obscuring the option to decline, creating unnecessary obstacles to cancelling a subscription, using artificial countdowns to generate urgency, or employing language intended to shame users who refuse an offer.[11]

Such practices can be especially concerning when directed at children, who may have less experience in recognising commercial persuasion.

Article 25 of the DSA prohibits certain online-platform interface practices that deceive or manipulate users or otherwise materially distort or impair their ability to make free and informed decisions. The application of this provision to particular designs depends on the circumstances and the scope of the law.

Algorithmic systems present further challenges. Social media platforms and applications often personalise content according to users’ interests and behaviour. Continuous feeds, reward mechanisms, and social feedback can encourage prolonged engagement. These design choices raise concerns about the influence of digital services on children’s attention and decision-making.

Although data-protection and consumer-protection rules address aspects of these practices, enforcement can be difficult where the operation of algorithms is opaque and the effects of individual design choices are difficult to establish.

D. Data Privacy and the Commercialisation of Childhood

Digital platforms may derive commercial value from children’s personal information through behavioural analysis, profiling, and targeted advertising. This creates incentives to collect and process data, potentially conflicting with the objective of limiting processing to what is necessary.

The GDPR imposes requirements concerning lawful processing, transparency, data minimisation, and children’s consent where applicable. However, the existence of consent mechanisms does not necessarily ensure that children or their parents understand the scope of the processing or its longer-term consequences.

The DSA also restricts profiling-based advertising directed at minors where the platform knows with reasonable certainty that the recipient is a minor. This restriction should be distinguished from a general prohibition on collecting all behavioural data relating to children. Other data-protection requirements may apply to such collection and processing, depending on the circumstances.

The broader concern is that treating children’s data as a commercial asset may affect their autonomy, privacy, and development. Legal frameworks must therefore address not only the formal validity of consent but also the purposes, scale, and consequences of data processing.

E. Jurisdictional and Cross-Border Challenges

Digital commerce frequently crosses national borders. A child may access a service operated by a company incorporated in another jurisdiction, creating uncertainty about applicable law, regulatory responsibility, and available remedies.

The GDPR’s territorial scope provides a model for applying data-protection rules to certain processing activities involving individuals in the European Union, including activities by some organisations established outside the EU. However, differences between national laws and enforcement practices may create uncertainty for platforms and protection gaps for children.

Effective cross-border protection requires cooperation among regulators, clarity about the obligations of service providers, and practical mechanisms through which affected consumers can seek assistance or redress.

V. Industry Self-Regulation and Co-Regulatory Approaches

In response to the limitations of statutory frameworks, digital platforms and industry bodies have developed voluntary initiatives, including age-assurance standards, age ratings, parental controls, and commitments concerning responsible advertising.

Self-regulation can allow industry participants to respond quickly to technological developments and establish common operational standards. However, voluntary measures may lack consistent enforcement and accountability. Commercial incentives to maximise user engagement and advertising revenue may also conflict with the objective of protecting children.

Government enforcement actions against major technology companies illustrate the importance of regulatory oversight where voluntary commitments are insufficient.

Co-regulation offers an alternative by combining statutory obligations with industry participation in developing and implementing standards. The DSA reflects aspects of this approach through legally binding platform obligations and regulatory processes. Its effectiveness depends on adequate regulatory capacity, transparency, and meaningful enforcement.

VI. Emerging Issues and Future Directions

A. Artificial Intelligence and Adaptive Personalisation

Advances in artificial intelligence allow platforms to predict behaviour and personalise content with increasing sophistication. Recommendation systems may identify patterns in a child’s activity and adapt content or commercial prompts accordingly.

These systems raise concerns about the potential exploitation of developmental vulnerabilities and the difficulty of understanding how individual recommendations are generated. General requirements concerning fairness and transparency may not, by themselves, address every risk arising from AI-enabled commercial persuasion.

The European Union’s AI Act establishes a risk-based regulatory framework for artificial intelligence. Its application to particular systems depends on the system’s function, risk classification, and relevant legal requirements. Questions concerning AI systems used to personalise commercial experiences for children require careful assessment under the applicable provisions.

B. Metaverse and Immersive Commerce

Emerging virtual environments create new forms of commercial interaction. Three-dimensional virtual spaces may combine entertainment, social interaction, advertising, and purchases in a single immersive experience.

These environments can make the distinction between content and commercial messaging less apparent. They may also raise questions concerning virtual property, in-platform purchases, and advertising directed at minors. Existing legal frameworks may require further interpretation or development to address these circumstances effectively.

C. Cryptocurrency and Decentralised Platforms

Cryptocurrency and decentralised platforms present additional challenges for age verification and parental oversight. Services operating without a clearly identifiable central operator may complicate the application of traditional consumer-protection mechanisms.

Where responsibility is distributed among multiple participants, identifying the appropriate entity for compliance and enforcement may be difficult. These challenges reinforce the need for regulatory approaches that account for the technical structure of digital services while preserving meaningful safeguards for children.

VII. Conclusion

Legal protection for children in digital environments remains incomplete despite significant regulatory developments. The CRC establishes foundational principles, while the European Union’s GDPR and DSA provide detailed rules concerning data protection, online-platform responsibilities, and the safety of minors. The United States’ COPPA and consumer-protection frameworks in common-law jurisdictions provide additional safeguards, although their scope differs.

Important challenges remain in five areas:

Age verification: Reliable age-assurance mechanisms remain technically difficult and can create privacy risks.
Parental authority: Existing consent systems do not always provide parents with meaningful understanding or control.
Commercial fairness: Dark patterns and algorithmic persuasion create challenges for consumer-protection law and enforcement.
Data protection: Consent-based frameworks do not fully resolve concerns about behavioural profiling and the commercialisation of childhood.
Jurisdictional coordination: Cross-border digital commerce requires cooperation between regulators and clearer enforcement mechanisms.

Effective protection requires a combination of clear statutory obligations, age-appropriate design, meaningful enforcement, standards that account for children’s developmental differences, and international coordination.

The central challenge is to balance legitimate commercial activity with the protection of children’s development, privacy, and autonomy. Legal frameworks must move beyond reliance on disclosure and consent alone and address the design and operation of digital services. A coordinated approach involving lawmakers, regulators, platforms, parents, and civil society is necessary to reduce the risk that digital commerce exploits children’s vulnerabilities.

References

Sonia Livingstone et al., The European Digital Literacy Framework (European Commission 2013).
Laurence Steinberg, “Risk Taking in Adolescence: New Perspectives from Brain and Behavioural Science,” 28 Current Directions in Psychological Science 496 (2008); Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power (PublicAffairs 2019).
Convention on the Rights of the Child, arts. 1 and 4, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3.
John D. Calamari et al., The Law of Contracts § 8-7 (6th ed. 2011); Roger Brownsword, “Contract Law, Cooperation, and Competition,” in The Handbook of the Law of Contracts (Peter Benson ed., 2010).
Convention on the Rights of the Child, arts. 3, 16–17.
Ibid., arts. 16–17.
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation), arts. 8 and 12, 2016 O.J. (L 119) 1.
Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act), arts. 25, 28, 34–35, 2022 O.J. (L 277) 1.
Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506.
Serena Fosch et al., Age Verification Technologies: A Comparative Analysis (European Commission, Joint Research Centre Technical Report 2018); U.S. Department of Commerce, NIST Interagency Report 8311, Face Recognition Technology FAQs (Sept. 2020).
Arunesh Mathur et al., “Dark Patterns at Scale: Findings from a Crawl of 11K Shopping Websites,” Proceedings of the ACM Internet Measurement Conference (2019).

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Lawscape.

The Lawscape — clear, practical legal insight for students and future lawyers.