Comment by timpera | Hacker News Reader

Comment by timpera | Hacker News Reader

Please note that the Conseil d'État, the highest French court for administrative matters, has issued a very skeptical opinion on this bill, saying that only the EU can impose new obligations onto digital platforms.

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2026/01/27/french-l...

> The amended and adopted text now states that "access to an online social network service provided by an online platform is prohibited for minors under the age of 15." This is a more ambiguous formulation, as it does not explicitly impose any requirements on social networks. However, as a consequence, "platforms will have to implement age verification measures to ensure the effectiveness of this measure," the government promised in the explanatory statement of the amendment. For major platforms like Instagram or Snapchat, sanctions would fall under the jurisdiction of the European Commission.

> This has raised eyebrows among several law experts specializing in European digital law, whom Le Monde interviewed. "The bill is legally fragile," warned Brunessen Bertrand, law professor at the University of Rennes-I. In her view, it is based on a "broad and highly questionable interpretation" of European rules.

As a french, I hate this law but I'm really pissed of that EU has any say in what laws we are passing.

The EU is a political and trade union. You send representatives there to vote on things like this. I think it's pretty obvious that a political union has a saw on laws (though most laws are still domestic).

Maybe you just don't like the idea of a political union at all, in which case the single market should be disbanded. I personally think that would be a huge mistake given everything that is going on in the world, but I live in the UK so can't really be telling anyone in the EU what to do.

Except the Conseil d'État is not a supreme court, so their opinion on the subject is irrelevant.

I don't know how it works in France, but in common law systems opinions of other courts are always at least capable of being persuasive (not binding) precedent, so they are not irrelevant. Other courts can be, and often are, influenced by persuasive precedent when appropriate.

The Conseil d'État isn't even a court per se, it doesn't make rulings, it doesn't set precedents. Its only job is to make sure that new laws voted by Parliament aren't unconstitutional. And when they are, they simply remove the part deemed so, and have to let the rest pass through.

You are confusing the Conseil d'État with the Conseil constitutionnel.

The Conseil d'État definitely makes rulings and sets precedents. However, it cannot control the constitutionality of laws.

The décret establishing the list of social networks forbidden to the <15 yo will be appealed before the Conseil d'État, which will most likely send a question to the CJEU and have the ability to cancel the décret, so I would argue that their opinion is extremely relevant. Same thing for the eventual sanctions taken by the Arcom.

European law takes precedence over national law, so the effectiveness of the bill appears to be limited. The same thing happened with the French age verification bill for adult websites.

>European law takes precedence over national law

Which European law supersedes this law? My unfamiliar guess is that if there is no specific contradiction then French law stands, otherwise how can any country pass any laws in the EU?

The Conseil d'Etat seems to think that there is a contradiction between the original draft and the DSA: https://www.conseil-etat.fr/avis-consultatifs/derniers-avis-... (starting at number 12)

> "By imposing a ban on access to social media on online platforms, the wording of the proposed law could be seen as raising difficulties with regard to the Digital Services Act."

Specifically, which?

Frexit?

One can still dream

Reply on news.ycombinator.com