Minors’ Digital Rights Trapped in State Paternalism

Regretting the Constitutional Court’s Decision Upholding Mandatory Identity Verification for Online Games

Games Resist Narrow Definitions Because They Have Become a Core Form of Modern Media and Social Life

The Constitutional Court of Korea, on November 27, 2025, ruled constitutional Article 12-3(1)1 of the former Act on the Promotion of the Game Industry, which requires internet game users to undergo identity verification procedures in order to regulate minors’ online gaming activity (Constitutional Court Decision 2021Hun-ma1053, Nov. 27, 2025). This decision reiterates the reasoning of the Court’s earlier 2015 ruling upholding the same provision (2013Hun-ma517). It is deeply regrettable in two respects. First, it once again views minors not as autonomous media users and rights-bearing individuals, but merely as objects of “protection and regulation,” thereby reaffirming a rigidly paternalistic approach by the state. Second, by mandating identity verification for age verification purposes, it seriously undermines the privacy of all internet users, including adults.

The majority opinion held that “the identity verification provision is a measure intended to prevent excessive gaming among minors, and its primary purpose is to ensure the effective operation of the age-based regulatory measures established under the former Game Industry Act.” The Court further reasoned that “for such age-based regulatory measures to function effectively, users’ ages must be accurately identified in advance. Without identity verification procedures, it is practically impossible for game-related businesses to accurately verify users’ real names or ages online. The provision minimizes the scope of information collection, and requiring users to undergo identity verification once at the time of registration cannot be regarded as a substantial barrier.”

The majority also referred to the World Health Organization’s 2019 classification of Gaming Disorder as a disease, stating that “minors often lack self-control compared to adults and are therefore more vulnerable to gaming addiction,” that “the rate of game use among minors is significantly higher than among other generations,” and that “research has shown that new forms of games incorporating technologies such as virtual reality (VR) and the metaverse may induce even stronger immersion among minors than traditional games.” On this basis, the Court concluded that excessive gaming among minors remains a social problem requiring institutional intervention, and that the need to prevent it through identity verification remains significant. However, this decision diminishes minors’ status and rights as autonomous media users and infringes upon their constitutional right to pursue happiness and their autonomy.

No country in the world legally defines and regulates “games” as such. Gaming — the act of competing toward victory or achievement through skill — is deeply woven into human life itself. Even the definition of “game” under Korea’s Game Industry Promotion Act is extremely broad: “audiovisual works produced using information-processing technologies such as computer programs or mechanical devices for the purposes of entertainment, leisure, learning, or exercise, as well as devices and equipment primarily intended for the use of such works.” What forms of modern audiovisual media fall outside such an expansive definition — namely, “entertainment-oriented audiovisual content using computers and screens”? Isn’t Instagram also used for entertainment? What about Netflix?

In reality, whether defined broadly as above or narrowly as MMORPGs, games are far more than mere toys. They have evolved into one of the most sophisticated forms of media, integrating virtually all contemporary media technologies. Games are large-scale interactive media in which users directly participate, make choices, and shape narratives within worlds constructed by developers. For minors in particular, games also function as “digital public squares” where people gather, communicate, build solidarity, and express their identities — spaces through which young people grow and develop. To impose mandatory age verification in order to differentially regulate minors’ access to internet games — one of the most advanced forms of media — under the pretext of preventing “addiction” or “excessive immersion” disregards minors’ agency and autonomy as media users.

Gaming addiction undoubtedly exists. But compulsive reading, compulsive studying, exercise addiction, and work addiction also exist. Yet we do not impose age verification requirements on those activities, precisely because they are not inherently harmful in themselves, but rather inseparable from culture, self-development, and the process of growing up.

Minors, too, are full holders of the constitutional right to pursue happiness guaranteed under Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. The right to pursue happiness includes the freedom to choose one’s own leisure activities and to derive fulfillment and social relationships from them. For the state to characterize minors’ gaming activity itself as a potential danger or addiction and forcibly regulate it infringes not only upon minors’ constitutional right to pursue happiness, but also deprives them of the opportunity to autonomously shape and govern their own lives and development. It likewise deprives families of the opportunity to autonomously guide and educate their children regarding leisure activities.

An additional and serious concern is that mandatory identity verification, introduced in the name of protecting minors, may ultimately lead to infringements upon the fundamental rights of all citizens, including adults. Requiring the entire population to undergo identity verification in order to engage in online activities — and compelling individuals to continuously disclose personal information and records of their online activities — threatens the rights and freedoms of all citizens, including the right to informational self-determination, the right to privacy, freedom of communication, and freedom of expression.

The dissenting opinion in this case articulates these concerns persuasively. The dissent stated that “internet gaming is a form of play whose essential element is freedom, and therefore state intervention or regulation of gaming activity must be approached with extreme caution. Insofar as it remains unclear whether excessive gaming and gaming addiction are direct causes of the harms attributed to them, the legislative goal of preventing gaming addiction cannot constitute a legitimate public interest that the state may pursue. This is equally true regardless of whether the regulated subjects are adults or minors.”

The dissent further explained that “even assuming partial legitimacy of the legislative purpose, requiring identity verification in order to use internet games creates the possibility of surveillance and control, thereby chilling users’ freedom.” Moreover, excessive gaming and gaming addiction result from a complex interplay of personal, psychological, and environmental factors. Preventive education, strengthened counseling systems, policy development, and the fostering of healthy leisure culture constitute the fundamental solutions, rather than simplistic restrictions on use.

The dissent also noted that the identity verification methods prescribed by the challenged provisions are not universally accessible to all citizens and may therefore exclude certain individuals from internet gaming altogether. It further emphasized that the possibility of personal information collected by certification or identity verification agencies being leaked cannot be ruled out, and that such measures may hinder the growth of the gaming industry. Accordingly, the dissent concluded that the provisions fail to satisfy the constitutional requirements of suitability, minimum impairment, and proportionality.

The dissent additionally observed that “even if identity verification contributes to some extent to preventing excessive gaming among minors, such measures must be implemented in a manner that preserves minors’ autonomy to the greatest extent possible.” It pointed out that under the Youth Protection Act, except in cases involving media harmful to minors, the goal of enabling minors to enjoy age-appropriate media is to be achieved through the voluntary efforts of minors themselves, their guardians, and relevant businesses. By contrast, the identity verification provision requires all users, without exception, to undergo identity verification in order to register and access internet games, thereby excessively restricting minors’ autonomy.

The dissent further reasoned that the legislative objective could still be achieved through less restrictive alternatives, such as verifying only users’ real names and ages without full identity verification procedures, or limiting identity verification requirements to games for which a demonstrated need for youth protection exists. Imposing mandatory identity verification uniformly across all games therefore violates the principle of minimum restriction.

For the digital-native generation, internet and digital media are not inherently harmful media. They are essential spaces for connection, solidarity, identity formation, and autonomous self-development — the very core arena of personal development protected under Article 10 of the Constitution. Viewing minors merely as objects of control in their use of digital media will only result in the erosion of minors’ agency and citizenship in a rapidly evolving digital civilization.

Moreover, once regulatory mechanisms introduced in the name of “protecting minors” begin to operate, they inevitably become a boomerang. Through expanding systems of age and identity verification, such mechanisms ultimately threaten the informational self-determination and freedom of anonymous expression of all citizens, far beyond the specific category of minors.

At a time when regulation of minors’ use of social media and AI is being actively introduced and debated around the world, we urge both the legislature and the judiciary to take seriously the concerns articulated in the dissenting opinion and to use them as guiding principles in the discussion and reform of related regulations.