A newborn being introduced to the world for the first time—live-streamed on Instagram. A toddler’s—seemingly—gratuitous tantrum filmed and shared with thousands for laughs. A preteen’s medical diagnosis detailed in a heartfelt post for “support and prayers”. A child’s first bath shared as a “cute” photo for strangers to admire. A teenager’s cringeworthy school performance immortalized in an Instagram reel for viral fame. As Steinberg, Brosch, and Lendvai, among other scholars, implied: our age is of the spectacle. Certainly, in the Debordian sense but also in the understanding and experience that the majority of a child’s life is documented via some kind of recording technology.

Sharenting, a word emerging from the combination of “share” and “parenting,” can be best described as the practice of publicly sharing information, including written, visual, audio, and audiovisual content, and personal data about children (especially minors) in the online space by parents, grandparents, guardians, or other family members is known as “child exploitation.” This act, therefore, includes all the instances mentioned in the opening segment: sharing a picture of a child on Facebook or other social media platforms, distributing records and information about them on a website, or in a very narrow sense, even sharing a picture of the fetus for the world to see.

Despite a multitude of scholars’ warnings who have been alarmed by the fact that sharenting is a burning issue, there is little to no comprehensive sharenting legislation in the world. Though some would rightfully question whether the GDPR’s (lack of) efficiency in protecting the child’s data, or the American COPPA would be sufficient in handling personality rights and data privacy-related polemics, it is clear as day that the act of sharenting is just as problematic as any other new media phenomenon proliferating online. Even more so, as sharenting involves a “paradox” as conceptualized by Bhroin and Lendvai on separate issues where the child should, technically, take legal action against their parent or relative without an effective legal framework to do so.

The rather conservative wording regarding the lack of regulation regarding sharenting is not aleatory; the French “sharenting law” emerged in response to growing concerns over children’s digital privacy. Sparked by the myriads of cases where parents shared seemingly harmless yet potentially detrimental content about their children without consent, the French sharenting law, a set of stipulations amending the “Code civil”, seeks to grant children greater control over their online presence. The law was introduced as part of broader discussions on privacy rights in the digital age, and it directly addresses the tension between parental authority and a child’s right to dignity.

Per the relatively short segment, the new stipulations aim to lay down a new meaning of the principle of shared parental responsibility, requiring both parents to jointly safeguard their child’s online presence by consulting one another and considering the child’s opinion, depending on their age and maturity, before sharing any images online. This latter criterion is not new, from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to the national legislation around the world, the “dependence on age and maturity” transpires into regulation. What is novel, however, is that the law allows children to exercise their image rights independently upon reaching maturity, reflecting a progressive approach to personal autonomy, even when it comes to children. In this regard, judges are granted powers to intervene in parental disputes, with the authority to prohibit the posting of a child’s image if there is disagreement or if such sharing risks the child’s dignity or privacy. Furthermore, the law prioritizes educational initiatives, aiming to inform parents about the risks of oversharing, such as digital permanence and exploitation, to encourage responsible behavior. Notably, the legislation also introduces penalties for parents who excessively violate their child’s image rights, reinforcing accountability through legal consequences.

This short essay, however, stems from an “advocatus diaboli” attitude. Despite its novelty, forward-thinking, and utterly children-friendly approach, a multitude of questions can be raised concerning France’s sharenting law. Firstly, the reliance on parental consultation presumes a level of cooperation and awareness that many families may lack, especially in contentious or separated households. This provision, therefore, does not only confirm but much rather, validates and fuels the “dilemma” mentioned above, as—from a practical standpoint—it is rather difficult to imagine a six-year-old child “cooperating” with their parent or discussing the “pros and cons” of sharing a photo of them. Secondly, the provision for judicial intervention in disputes, though well-meaning in theory, risks overburdening courts with cases that may be difficult to adjudicate due to subjective definitions of harm or consent. The enforcement mechanisms are also questionable as it remains unclear how authorities will monitor and penalize violations effectively. Nonetheless, the biggest issue seems to stem from the fact that the current regulatory framework does not seem to, or in a more worrying case, does not wish to understand the ever-evolving nature of digital content sharing. In this context, prioritizing parental consent and responsibility essentially means that the legislation may unintentionally legitimize harmful practices under the guise of family rights.

The French sharenting law is undoubtedly a bold, yet certainly significant step toward addressing the legal challenges of sharenting. However, it raises more questions than it answers. One may rightly ask: is it enough to ask parents for accountability when the platforms they use profit from exploitation and oversharing? And more so, is it even possible to discuss sharenting between a child and a parent; act fundamentally based on an interpersonal conflict? Finally, is it even the legislator’s task to regulate, or stipulate the concerns emerging from sharenting? The answers are yet to be answered. Nonetheless, as digital boundaries between private and public continue to erode at a rapid pace, the French law may be a fleeting attempt to patch a growing chasm and a crucial first step to follow by many other nations.

Gergely Ferenc Lendvai is a PhD candidate at Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Faculty of Law. He earned his JD at Eötvös Loránd University of Budapest, Faculty of Law and Master’s degree in Comparative Law at Panthéon-Assas (Paris II) University. His main research areas include online freedom of expression, platform governance, AI and law, online discrimination, and new media phenomena.