World

We Digital Youth International (DYI) is committed to respecting the laws, regulations, and cultural norms of every jurisdiction where we operate. In listening to and gathering feedback from youth, we follow local legal requirements regarding age of consent and parental approval, ensuring that participation is voluntary, informed, and ethically responsible.

Region	Country / Territory	Age Threshold	Legal Description	Legal Reference
Middle East	UAE	18+	Wadeema Law defines a child as <18. Processing minor data without parental consent is restricted.	UAE Legislation
	Oman	18+	Royal Decree 6/2022 prohibits processing child data without express guardian consent.	GCC BDI
	Bahrain	18+	PDPL (2018) treats 18 as the competence age for data, though civil majority is 21.	Lexis Middle East
Qatar	18+	Law No.13/2016 requires guardian consent and prohibits harmful profiling of minors.	Lexis Middle East
Jordan	18+	Law No.24/2023 mandates verifiable parental consent for those lacking legal capacity.	Securiti.ai
Kuwait	21+	Civil Code sets majority at 21. Minors cannot act independently in most contracts/data matters.	Oxford Academic
East Asia	China	14+	PIPL Art. 31 requires guardian consent for minors under 14; 14+ can consent independently.	SPP.gov.cn
	South Korea	14+	PIPA requires legal guardian consent for any data subject under the age of 14.	DLA Piper
	Japan	16+	APPI guidance treats under 16s as children requiring parental involvement for consent.	IAPP
	Taiwan	18+	Civil Code amendment (2023) lowered majority to 18 for digital/contractual matters.	FBLAW
	Hong Kong	18+	PDPO practice expects parental consent for anyone under 18 as best practice.	PCPD
South Asia	India	18+	DPDP Act 2023 defines children as <18 and forbids tracking/ads without parental consent.	TechPolicy.Press
	Pakistan	18+	Majority Act 1875 sets majority at 18. Guardians needed for official agreements below this.	Majority Act
	Bangladesh	18+	Inherited Majority Act 1875; 18 is the threshold for independent legal consent.	WeCan BD
	Sri Lanka	18+	Age of Majority Ordinance makes 18 the legal age for contracts and data processing.	Sri Lanka Law
North America	USA	13+	COPPA requires verified parental consent for children <13. (CA/CCPA adds rules for <16).	FTC.gov
North America	Canada	13+	PIPEDA practice suggests <13 cannot meaningfully consent; 13-17 require age-appropriate terms.	Hunton Privacy
Europe	UK	13+	UK GDPR (DPA 2018) sets digital consent age at 13 for online services.	UK Legislation
	Sweden	13+	Implements GDPR with the age of 13 as the threshold for independent digital consent.	GDPR Art.8
	Finland	13+	Supplementary legislation fixes age 13 for independent digital consent.	Linklaters
	France	15+	Data Protection Act requires joint consent (child + parent) for those under 15.	CNIL
	Germany	16+	Maintains the standard GDPR age of 16; no reduction in age for digital consent.	GDPR Art.8
	Netherlands	16+	Dutch law (UAVG) keeps the GDPR default age of 16 for valid online consent.	Linklaters

Click To Expand

In accordance with applicable regional regulations and ethical standards, we DYI is committed to synthesize recurring digital challenges expressed by youth across regions. These challenges are first presented in their original global distribution, followed by a population-weighted distribution to better reflect regional demographic differences. Regional breakdowns are then shown to highlight local digital realities.

Revised Global Digital Youth Challenge Distribution was revised using the following weighted average formula, in order to fit the disparity of youth population around the world.

P_global =

∑

i=1

( w_i = 1 ×

C_i

N_i

)

Where:

• P_global: Weighted global percentage for a given category
• W_i: Demographic weight of region i
• C_i: Count of the category in region i
• N_i: Total number of responses collected in region i

DYI’s two core systems for protecting participants and feedback

Decentralization

Double-blind

DIGITAL YOUTH INTERNATIONAL (DYI) FEEDBACK LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMER

The feedback provided by the Digital Youth International (DYI) for the February 2026 reporting cycle offers a descriptive overview of youth digital participation. However, several limitations of our methodology must be acknowledged to ensure the findings are interpreted correctly.

1. Sampling and Representativeness within DYI The DYI feedback is primarily based on non-random convenience samples. Participants were recruited through accessible channels like specific schools or regional organizations rather than through national probability sampling. This means the findings primarily reflect the specific groups sampled and may not be representative of the broader youth population in each country. Furthermore, there is a significant imbalance in sample sizes across the DYI network, such as 899 respondents in the United Arab Emirates compared to only 21 in Bahrain or 57 in Sweden. These discrepancies limit the external validity and make reliable comparisons difficult. Reference: The Inconvenient Truth About Convenience and Purposive Samples
2. Inconsistent Age and Demographic Coverage DYI does not cover a consistent age cohort across all regions. In North American and European samples, the feedback focuses on youth aged 13 to 18. Conversely, in the Middle East and South Asia, the feedback focuses heavily on young adults aged 18 to 21. This demographic heterogeneity complicates cross-regional comparisons because digital behaviors and risk perceptions often change significantly as individuals transition from mid-adolescence to young adulthood. Reference: Adolescents’ Life Satisfaction and the Moderating Role of Gender: A Cross-Country Analysis
3. Self-Reporting and Measurement Bias The results of the DYI survey rely on first-hand consented feedback, which can be influenced by social desirability bias. Participants may under-report sensitive behaviors or over-report socially acceptable ones. Additionally, since DYI operates in multiple languages, the translation of key concepts such as cyberbullying or digital surveillance may not be perfectly equivalent across all versions of the survey, potentially leading to different interpretations by participants in different countries. Reference: A solution to the pervasive problem of response bias in self-reports
4. Cultural and Contextual Influence on cultural norms can significantly impact how DYI participants respond to survey questions. Different cultural groups may exhibit distinct response styles, such as a tendency toward extreme answers or a preference for neutral options. These patterns can create the appearance of statistical differences between nations that actually reflect cultural communication styles rather than actual differences in digital experiences. Reference: Do Cross-National and Ethnic Group Bullying Comparisons Represent Reality?
5. Statistical Constraints and Generalizability Due to the small sample sizes in certain DYI regions, the margin of error for those specific subsets is high. Without population weighting, the feedback should be treated as a preliminary snapshot rather than a definitive longitudinal study. The cross-sectional nature of the DYI feedback also means it cannot be used to establish cause-and-effect relationships regarding youth digital behavior. Reference: Implications of Small Samples for Generalization: Adjustments and Rules of Thumb