A Policy That Targeted 13 Year Olds Directly
Google has ended a deeply controversial policy after it was revealed that the company was emailing 13 year old children detailed instructions on how to remove parental controls from their accounts without parental consent. The practice sparked immediate outrage once screenshots of the emails spread online, with parents and child safety advocates accusing Google of deliberately undermining parental authority.
Under the policy, children were told that once they turned 13, they could “take charge of their account” and disable supervision features that parents had put in place. This included removing safe search filters and ending parents’ ability to monitor activity. The emails were sent directly to minors, not to parents, and explained step by step how to turn supervision off.
Critics say this was not a neutral policy choice but an intentional effort to separate children from parental oversight at the earliest possible moment.
Google’s Family Link system allowed parents to supervise a child’s account until age 13. When a child approached that birthday, Google would send emails notifying both the parent and the child. On the child’s birthday, Google sent a follow up message directly to the teen explaining how to disable supervision entirely, even if parents objected.
The company’s frequently asked questions page explicitly stated that after turning 13, parents would no longer be able to manage the account unless the child agreed. In effect, Google treated 13 year olds as fully independent decision makers for complex digital, data, and safety choices.
Advocates argue this crossed a serious ethical line by encouraging minors to bypass safeguards their parents deliberately put in place.
Why Google Is Ending the Practice Now
Google did not end the policy voluntarily. The change came only after viral social media posts and widespread public criticism. Screenshots of the emails triggered what many described as an eruption of anger from parents who had no idea their children were being encouraged to remove protections.
After the backlash, Google announced it would revise the policy so that supervised minors must receive parental approval before supervision can be turned off. This marked a direct reversal of the prior approach.
Despite the announcement, critics noted that Google’s own documentation continued to list the old rules, raising concerns that the company was slow walking or quietly maintaining parts of the policy even after public promises to change it.
Google Response?
Kate Charlet, Google’s head of global privacy, safety, and security, addressed the controversy in a LinkedIn post. She said the company would now require parental approval before supervision could be removed.
She stated that the update would “better ensure protections stay in place until both the parent and teen feel ready for the next step” and claimed that Google’s focus remained on “empowering families with the tools they need to navigate the digital world safely.”
Critics responded that empowering families does not involve secretly instructing children on how to override their parents.
Notably, Google declined to respond to direct media requests for comment when first questioned about the emails.
Parents and Advocates Call It Predatory
The reaction from parents, advocates, and legal experts has been overwhelmingly hostile. Many described the practice as predatory and compared it to grooming behavior, arguing that no corporation should privately encourage children to separate themselves from parental supervision.
Melissa McKay, president of the Digital Childhood Institute, was one of the first to bring public attention to the policy. She raised serious legal and ethical questions about who approved the practice and under what authority Google believed it could mass email children about disabling protections.
She asked whether any law actually allows minors to consent to complex terms of service involving data use, liability, and payments, and why app stores treat 13 year olds as legally capable contracting parties when they are not considered adults in any other meaningful sense.
McKay also warned parents not to normalize behavior like this, arguing that tech companies often retreat only when forced into accountability by public pressure.
The COPPA Justification and Why Critics Reject It
Google justified its policy by pointing to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, which gives parents control over data collection for children under 13. Once a child turns 13, those restrictions ease.
Critics argue that COPPA does not magically transform children into competent adults capable of making informed decisions about privacy, safety, and digital risk. They also note that the law does not require companies to push children toward independence, especially in ways that override parental intent.
The fact that Google chose to actively instruct minors on how to disable safeguards, rather than leaving the decision to families, is at the heart of the outrage.
Why This Matters Beyond Google
This episode has intensified broader concerns about how major tech companies view children. Parents and advocates say the incident reveals a mindset in which minors are treated as products and future revenue streams rather than individuals who need protection.
Many are now calling for firings, internal investigations, and clearer legal limits on how companies communicate with children. Others argue this is further proof that tech giants cannot be trusted to self regulate when profits and data collection are at stake.
The policy only ended after it was exposed. For critics, that fact alone confirms their worst suspicions.
To them, this was not a mistake. It was a calculated decision that only stopped once Google was caught.
