Table of Contents
Chile Social Media Ban Under 14, and the Deepfake Bill
Chile social media ban under 14 explained: two bills, the algorithmic-responsibility idea, the deepfake fines and what Chile borrows from Australia's law.
Chile is considering two different ways to keep children under 14 off social media, and neither is law yet. A Senate bill filed in May 2026 would ban accounts for under-14s unless a parent authorizes them. A broader bill filed in the Chamber of Deputies in June would ban under-14s outright, require verifiable parental consent from 14 to 16, outlaw infinite scroll and streaks for minors, and extend its rules to AI chatbots kids can reach. That is the Chile social media ban under 14 debate in one paragraph.
A third bill, on sexual and other deepfakes, passed a first vote in the Chamber in July 2026 by 129 to 2. All three borrow from abroad, especially Australia, whose under-16 ban took effect in December 2025. Here is what each bill would do, how they differ, what the evidence behind an age-14 line looks like, and what Chilean families can do while Congress debates.
Key Takeaways
- Two under-14 bills exist, with different designs. The Senate bill allows a parental-permission exception; the Chamber’s BoletĂn 18318-19 bans under-14s and requires verifiable parental consent from 14 to 16.
- BoletĂn 18318-19 goes beyond age limits. It would ban infinite scroll, autoplay, streaks and time-based rewards for minors, ban behavioral ads to them, and cover conversational AI “directed to or accessible by” minors.
- The deepfake bill protects a person’s image, body and voice, with fines of 5,000 to 10,000 UTM (about 358 to 716 million pesos) and court-ordered takedowns. It went back to committee after its first vote.
- The research behind age 14 is real but modest. A large UK study found social media use predicted lower life satisfaction most strongly at 11 to 13 for girls and 14 to 15 for boys, with small effects.
- Nothing changes for Chilean families yet. All three are bills; the useful steps today are household ones.
What the Senate’s under-14 bill proposes
The first proposal is a Senate motion by senators Javier Macaya, Iván Moreira, Gustavo Sanhueza, Enrique Van Rysselberghe and Cristian Vial, sent to the Education and Family committees. According to DPL News, which reported it on May 29, 2026, it would:
- Ban social media for under-14s, except when a father, mother or guardian authorizes it.
- Require platforms to run an identification system “to control the registration age of users and the authorization.”
- Make platforms delete accounts that do not meet the minimum age, and open a channel where anyone can report such accounts.
- Require deletion of data from removed accounts, unless the responsible adult or a court asks otherwise.
- Fine non-compliant platforms 500 to 2,000 UTM, doubled for repeat offenses.
A note on that fine. DPL News converted 2,000 UTM to “about US$15,800.” That figure looks wrong. Using the UTM value implied by CNN Chile’s July coverage (5,000 UTM equals about 358 million pesos), 2,000 UTM is roughly 143 million Chilean pesos, far more than US$15,800. Treat the dollar figure with caution until the bill’s official text is published with a conversion.
What the “algorithmic responsibility” bill adds
The second proposal, BoletĂn 18318-19, entered the Chamber of Deputies on June 1, 2026. The Diario Oficial’s legal news service describes it as a “statute of algorithmic responsibility” for digital platforms serving users in Chile. Its premise is that platforms are designed to maximize time and interaction, with effects that hit minors hardest.
Its main parts:
| Age | What the bill would require |
|---|---|
| Under 14 | No registration, access or use of social networks |
| 14 to 16 | Express, informed and verifiable parental authorization |
| Over 16 | No specific age limit; other rules still apply |
On top of the age bands, it would:
- Ban “addictive algorithmic design” for minors: continuous scroll, autoplay, streaks, certain notifications, and rewards tied to time spent.
- Ban behavioral advertising aimed at minors and limit profiling based on inferred preferences.
- Extend special rules to online betting platforms, live-streaming services, pornography sites and “conversational artificial intelligence systems directed to or accessible by minors.”
- Require transparency reports from providers with more than 100,000 monthly active users in Chile, covering how their algorithms work and what they do about minors.
This is the more ambitious bill, and the more interesting one. It treats the design of the product, not just the age of the user, as the problem. That idea, sometimes called “safety by design,” is closer to Brazil’s ECA Digital than to Australia’s law. It is also one of the first bills in Latin America to name chatbots explicitly.
What both bills borrow from Australia, and what they do not
Australia’s law took effect on December 10, 2025. According to the eSafety Commissioner, age-restricted platforms must take “reasonable steps” to prevent Australians under 16 from creating or keeping accounts. There are no penalties for children or parents; platforms face court-imposed fines of up to AUD 109.2 million. eSafety reported that platforms removed access to 4.7 million under-16 accounts by mid-December 2025.
Chile’s bills borrow the core move, putting the age-check burden on platforms rather than families. They differ in three ways.
| Australia (in force) | Chile Senate bill | Chile BoletĂn 18318-19 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age line | Under 16 | Under 14 | Under 14; consent 14 to 16 |
| Parent override | No | Yes, parent can authorize | No under 14; required 14 to 16 |
| Design rules | Not the focus | Not included | Bans scroll, autoplay, streaks |
| Chatbots | Not covered by the age rule | Not mentioned | Covered if accessible to minors |
| Penalties | Up to AUD 109.2 million | 500 to 2,000 UTM, doubled for repeats | Not reported in the summary we read |
| Status | In force since Dec 10, 2025 | In Senate committees | In the Chamber |
The lower age line is notable. Australia chose 16; both Chilean bills choose 14. The Senate bill’s parental exception also changes the law’s character: it becomes a default that a parent can opt out of, rather than a ban.
For a look at how Australia’s ban is going in practice, see our piece on Australia’s under-16 ban three months in.
Chile’s deepfake bill
The third proposal is about fabricated media, not age. On July 22, 2026, the Chamber approved in general, by 129 votes to 2 with 5 abstentions, a bill regulating “the non-consented use of artificial intelligence technologies to generate, disseminate or store realistic digital imitations” of a person’s image, body or voice, CNN Chile reported.
The bill would:
- Make a person’s image, body and voice a specific object of legal protection against unauthorized technological reproduction.
- Let courts order precautionary measures, such as removing or blocking content, to prevent irreparable harm.
- Set fines from 5,000 to 10,000 UTM, which CNN Chile put at about 358 to 716 million pesos.
- Exclude parody, criticism and artistic expression, as long as they are identifiable as such and do not mislead or cause harm.
Deputy Iracà Hassler said during the debate that “girls, adolescents and women are the main victims of digital violence.” Critics raised concerns about giving platforms power to decide what to remove and about free expression. The bill went back to the Future, Science and Technology committee for amendments.
This is a civil and regulatory bill, not a criminal one. It gives families a faster route to takedowns and fines; it does not create a new prison sentence. For sexual images of minors, existing child-protection crimes still apply.
What the research says about age 14 and a Chile social media ban under 14
Lawmakers rarely cite studies in bill summaries, but the age-14 line connects to one of the better-known findings in the field.
In 2022, Amy Orben and colleagues published “Windows of developmental sensitivity to social media” in Nature Communications. Using two UK datasets with 84,011 participants, they found the link between social media use and lower life satisfaction was most negative in younger adolescents. Longitudinal data on 17,409 young people suggested sensitive windows when higher use predicted lower life satisfaction a year later: ages 11 to 13 for girls and 14 to 15 for boys.
Two cautions. The effects in that study were small, and the relationship ran both ways: lower life satisfaction also predicted more social media use later. And no study has yet tested whether a legal ban at 14 improves outcomes. Australia’s evaluation is the first large test of a ban, and its results are still early. Our explainer on why ages 11 to 13 matter for girls online covers the Orben study in more detail.
What Chilean families can do now
Do not wait for the law to set your family’s age
Neither bill is close to final passage. If you think 14 is the right age for your child’s first social account, you can set that rule at home today, and explain the reasons rather than just the rule.
Turn off the design features the bill targets
BoletĂn 18318-19 is a useful checklist even if it never passes. On your child’s apps, turn off autoplay where you can, mute non-essential notifications, and talk about streaks, which are designed to make skipping a day feel like a loss.
Ask which chatbots are in your child’s apps
The bill names chatbots because many apps now include them. Look at the apps your child uses and ask: is there an AI assistant inside? Our guide to how age verification works and why kids get around it is useful background for that conversation.
Know your options on deepfakes today
Until the deepfake bill passes, report fake images on the platform first, keep usernames, links and dates, and go to the police or the prosecutor’s office if the image is sexual or involves a minor. Do not forward the image.
What not to do: assume a ban solves the problem
Australia’s experience shows that platform age checks remove millions of accounts and still leave gaps. A ban can change the default; it cannot replace knowing what your child does online.
What to Watch For Over the Next 3 Months
- Week 4: Whether the Future, Science and Technology committee finishes amendments to the deepfake bill and sends it back to the Chamber floor.
- Month 2 red flags: Your under-14 opening accounts with a false birth date, or streak anxiety that keeps them up at night. Both are signs to revisit your rules together.
- Month 3 self-check: Watch for Senate committee activity on the under-14 motion and any official text with a peso or dollar conversion for the fines.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has Chile banned social media for kids under 14?
No. As of November 2026, two bills propose it, but neither has passed. The Senate motion would allow parents to authorize an account; BoletĂn 18318-19 in the Chamber would ban under-14s and require verifiable parental consent from 14 to 16. Both must pass both chambers before becoming law.
Would parents or kids be fined?
The proposals described so far fine platforms, not families. The Senate bill would fine platforms 500 to 2,000 UTM, doubled for repeat offenses. Australia’s law, which Chile borrows from, also places no penalties on children or parents.
Does the Chilean bill cover ChatGPT and other chatbots?
BoletĂn 18318-19 would extend its rules to conversational AI systems “directed to or accessible by” minors, according to the Diario Oficial’s summary. How that would work in practice, and which products it would cover, would depend on the final text and regulations.
What would the deepfake bill do for a teen targeted by a fake image?
It would treat a person’s image, body and voice as legally protected, let courts order fast removal or blocking, and fine violators 5,000 to 10,000 UTM. Parody and art that is clearly identifiable are excluded. It passed a general vote in July 2026 and returned to committee.
Why 14 and not 16?
Neither bill summary explains the choice. Research by Orben and colleagues found sensitive windows at 11 to 13 for girls and 14 to 15 for boys, though the effects were small. Australia chose 16. The right line is a policy judgment as much as a scientific one.
About the author
Ricky Flores is the founder of HiWave Makers and an electrical engineer with 15+ years of experience building consumer technology at Apple, Samsung, and Texas Instruments. He writes about how kids learn to build, think, and create in a tech-saturated world. Read more at hiwavemakers.com.
Sources
- DPL News. (2026, May 29). “Chile se suma al trend y evalúa prohibir redes sociales a menores de 14 años.” https://dplnews.com/?p=317594
- Diario Oficial de Chile, Actualidad JurĂdica. (2026, June 9). “Proyecto de ley busca crear un estatuto de responsabilidad algorĂtmica para proteger a menores en entornos digitales.” https://actualidadjuridica.doe.cl/proyecto-de-ley-busca-crear-un-estatuto-de-responsabilidad-algoritmica-para-proteger-a-menores-en-entornos-digitales/
- CNN Chile. (2026, July 23). “Con multas de hasta $716 millones: Cámara de Diputadas y Diputados aprueba proyecto que sanciona las deepfakes.” https://www.cnnchile.com/pais/con-multas-de-hasta-716-millones-camara-de-diputadas-y-diputados-aprueba-proyecto-que-sanciona-las-deepfakes/
- eSafety Commissioner. (2026). “Social media age restrictions.” Australian Government. https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions
- Orben, A., Przybylski, A. K., Blakemore, S.-J., & Kievit, R. A. (2022). “Windows of developmental sensitivity to social media.” Nature Communications, 13, 1649. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29296-3
