# Conditions applicable to child's consent in relation to information society services 8(1) — GDPR — provision context

> Focused context for a single provision (8(1)), curated from overview.legal on 2026-08-22. Canonical: https://overview.legal/laws/gdpr/art-8#par-1
> Verify against the official text (EUR-Lex / wetten.overheid.nl) before relying on it.

Part of **Conditions applicable to child's consent in relation to information society services** (GDPR, full article: https://overview.legal/laws/gdpr/art-8).

## Provision text

### 8(1)

Where point (a) of Article 6(1) applies, in relation to the offer of information society services directly to a child, the processing of the personal data of a child shall be lawful where the child is at least 16 years old. Where the child is below the age of 16 years, such processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that consent is given or authorised by the holder of parental responsibility over the child.

- Member States may provide by law for a lower age for those purposes provided that such lower age is not below 13 years.

## Topics on this provision

- **Child Consent** — https://overview.legal/topics/child-consent-information-society-services
  This new topic is needed because the content specifically addresses the unique conditions and requirements for obtaining valid consent from children in the cont
- **Personal Data** — https://overview.legal/topics/persoonsgegevens
  Information relating to identified or identifiable natural persons
- **Consent** — https://overview.legal/topics/toestemming
  Freely given, specific, informed indication of data subject wishes

## Cited by (exact-provision citations)

- **LINDQUIST, 6.11.2003 (“LINDQUIST”)** (case-law) — https://overview.legal/posts/6196
- **SERGEJS BUIVIDS v. THE AUGSTĀKĀ TIESA** (case-law) — https://overview.legal/posts/6131
- **Google LLC v CNIL** (case-law) — https://overview.legal/posts/51476
- **VOLKER UND MARKUS SCHECKE GBR V. LAND HESSEN, EIFERT V. LAND HESSEN AND BUNDESANSTALT FUR LANDWIRTSCHAFT UND ERNAHRUNG, 9.Nov.2010 (“SCHECKE”)** (case-law) — https://overview.legal/posts/6180
- **Meta Platforms v noyb** (case-law) — https://overview.legal/posts/51484
- **FTT: NMC should have neither confirmed nor denied holding struck-off nurse's personal data** (case-law) — https://overview.legal/posts/53656
- **HvJ EU 9 januari 2025, C‑394/23 (Mousse).** (case-law) — https://overview.legal/posts/50377
- **Privacy International v Secretary of State** (case-law) — https://overview.legal/posts/51481
- **GC and Others v CNIL** (case-law) — https://overview.legal/posts/51475
- **Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications** (case-law) — https://overview.legal/posts/51474
- **LSG-GESELLSCHAFT ZUR WAHRNEHMUNG VON LEISTUNGSSCHUTZRECHTEN GMBH V. TELE2 TELECOMMUNICATION GMBH, 19.Feb.2009 (“Tele2”)** (case-law) — https://overview.legal/posts/6184
- **French Supreme Admin Court partly upholds challenge to graduated response IP data decree** (case-law) — https://overview.legal/posts/122869

---
Generated by overview.legal · https://overview.legal/laws/gdpr/art-8#par-1 · 2026-08-22