Costa Rican children younger than 15 could be barred from opening social media accounts under one of two bills now before the Legislative Assembly. Child-welfare experts warn that an age limit alone will not keep minors safe online. The newest proposal would set 15 as the minimum age to create or keep an account on a social network. National Liberation Party (PLN) lawmaker Eder Hernández filed it on Sept. 28, with fellow PLN legislator Diana Murillo also signing, and it is awaiting assignment to a committee.
An earlier bill would set the threshold at 14. Then-lawmaker MarÃa Marta Carballo of the Social Christian Unity Party (PUSC) filed it last December, and the Assembly’s Youth, Children and Adolescents Committee approved it unanimously in April. It has not yet been voted on by the full Assembly.
Under the Hernández proposal, platforms would have to take reasonable steps to keep users under 15 from holding accounts. Existing accounts would be covered too, under a gradual transition to be set by regulation, while messaging apps and games would be excluded. Age checks would have to be proportionate to the risk, and government ID could not be the main verification method. Platforms could collect only the personal data strictly needed to confirm a user’s age.
The Science and Technology Ministry (MICITT) would supervise compliance and could impose fines of up to 30 base salaries, about 13.9 million colones ($30,600), for serious or repeated violations. The child welfare agency PANI would help write the rules, and the data protection agency Prodhab would oversee the information collected during verification.
The bill also proposes an annual tax of 100 base salaries, roughly 46.2 million colones ($102,000), on every company that owns a social network available in Costa Rica. A network that does not pay could be blocked here. The Carballo bill focuses more on how platforms are designed and children under 14 could use only versions built for their age group, with parental controls switched on and addictive features off by default.
Teens from 14 to 17 would face strong age verification, such as the identity card for minors known here as the TIM, plus express consent from a parent or guardian. Platforms would also be barred from showing personalized advertising to minors and would have to disable infinite scroll and autoplay by default.
Fines under that bill would range from 15 to 50 base salaries, roughly 6.9 million to 23.1 million colones ($15,300 to $51,000). The MICITT and the telecommunications regulator SUTEL would share enforcement duties with parents and the companies themselves.
Catalina Chaves, a psychologist and director of the La Casa de los Niños Foundation, said a minimum age does not by itself protect children. She noted that the same risks of cyberbullying, contact with strangers and harmful content exist in games, websites and apps that require no account at all, and said no law can cover every one of those spaces.
Chaves said the most lasting protection is teaching children early to recognize false information and manipulation. She warned that bans without guidance could push minors to use platforms in secret, making it harder for them to ask for help when something goes wrong. The foundation favors pairing regulation with digital education in schools, family support and accountability for technology companies.
UNICEF has made a similar point, saying age restrictions on their own do not guarantee safety online and that digital tools also offer children benefits for learning and communication.vBoth camps look to Australia, which began restricting accounts for users under 16 on several major platforms in December 2025.
An evaluation published this year in The BMJ, cited by the foundation, found that about three months after the rules took effect, more than 85% of surveyed adolescents under 16 said they had used restricted platforms. Neither bill has a date for a vote in the full Assembly. If either one passes, the practical details of how ages are checked and how existing accounts are handled would be set later through regulations.
