Should Teenagers Have More Control Over Their Online Data?

Teenagers should have more control over their online data, but that control should grow with their ability to make informed decisions and should not replace adult protection or company responsibility. In practice, greater control means understandable explanations of what information a service collects, meaningful ways to limit unnecessary collection, and options to review or delete information. It also means that privacy-protective choices should be easy to use rather than buried in complicated settings. This is not a demand that young people manage every risk alone. It is a claim that, as they mature, they should have a real voice in choices that affect their information.

The Federal Trade Commission’s explanation of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) shows why the starting point for U.S. children’s privacy is protection. The FTC says COPPA gives parents control over what information websites can collect from their children, and that the rule adds protections and procedures for companies it covers. This approach recognizes that children’s information deserves safeguards rather than treating collection as an unavoidable price of using a website. Yet parental control and teen participation are not identical. A framework focused on parents does not, by itself, describe how teenagers can gain a greater role as they develop the capacity to understand data choices. Strong protection and growing personal agency can work together.

The FTC also explains that COPPA may apply to websites aimed at children and to sites directed at general audiences. That detail matters because a young person does not necessarily use a service that presents itself as a children’s site. It supports a shared-responsibility principle: companies should explain their practices clearly, public rules should establish expectations, and young users should be able to understand the choices available to them. A teenager cannot exercise control over information practices they cannot see or interpret. A lengthy notice that technically discloses collection but leaves a user unable to act on it is disclosure without meaningful agency. Clear, usable choices are therefore part of protection, not a substitute for it.

Pew Research Center’s 2025 survey gives a concrete reason that usable controls matter in everyday life: 97% of U.S. teens said they use the internet daily, including four-in-ten who said they were online almost constantly. This describes reported internet use; it does not prove that every teen is harmed or that data collection caused a particular outcome. The inference is narrower. When internet use is routine, simply telling teenagers to avoid online services is not a realistic privacy policy. Protections need to function within ordinary participation, so users can make choices about information without having to abandon services that are part of daily communication and activity.

Teenagers’ ability to reflect on their own online habits also supports giving them a role in privacy decisions. In Pew’s 2024 report, 45% of teens who use social media said they spend too much time on it, up from 27% in 2023. That self-assessment does not establish that social media causes mental-health problems, and screen time is not the same issue as data collection. It does show that many teens can evaluate aspects of their digital lives and recognize when their behavior does not match their preferences. Privacy choices should respect that capacity: teenagers who can consider their habits should also be invited to understand and help shape decisions about their personal information.

More control should take the form of concrete, usable options rather than a checkbox that shifts responsibility to the user. A service could explain in plain language what information it collects and why, distinguish necessary collection from optional uses, and make it possible to decline the latter. It could also provide a straightforward way to review or delete personal information and avoid pressuring young users toward less private settings. These are proposals for responsible design, not claims that the FTC’s current COPPA guidance guarantees each feature on every service. The distinction is important: rights on paper cannot guide behavior unless a teenager can understand the choice and take the action.

A serious objection is that teenagers may not foresee how information shared today could matter later, so giving them more authority could weaken parental protection. That concern is especially persuasive for younger teenagers and sensitive choices. But it does not follow that adults should make every decision without involving the young person affected. Parents can explain risks, help evaluate choices, and step in when protection is necessary; services can use explanations that suit young users and privacy-protective starting settings. COPPA’s parent-centered approach illustrates the importance of adult involvement, but it need not exclude a gradual increase in teen participation. Shared decisions can preserve safeguards while building responsible judgment.

There are limits to what the evidence can establish. Pew’s survey describes reported patterns among U.S. teens; internet use and self-assessments do not prove that a particular privacy feature will prevent harm or that every teenager is ready for the same level of independence. COPPA, meanwhile, is a children’s privacy framework centered on parental control, not a complete account of how every teenager can exercise agency across online services. These limits argue for careful, age-appropriate choices rather than either unrestricted control or no control at all. The practical question is how to make involvement understandable and proportionate, while keeping companies accountable for the systems they design.

Teenagers should therefore have more control over their online data, paired with strong company duties and appropriate adult support. The FTC’s description of COPPA shows that U.S. children’s privacy guidance already recognizes the need for safeguards and parental involvement, while also showing why that framework alone does not settle how teenagers should participate as they mature. Pew’s findings make the issue concrete: internet access is routine for most teens, and many assess their own social-media habits critically. Neither finding proves that every teen is ready for every decision. Together, however, they support a balanced principle: protection should not require silence. As teenagers develop, they should gain clear, safer ways to participate in decisions about their information.

How the argument works

The essay defends a qualified position: expand teenagers’ agency without removing adult guidance or company responsibility. It uses the FTC’s description of COPPA to explain the existing parent-centered protection and its stated reach. It then uses Pew findings about daily internet use and teens’ self-assessments to explain why practical choices matter, while distinguishing reported behavior from causal proof. The counterargument about maturity is answered with gradual participation, adult support, and privacy-protective design. The conclusion acknowledges that neither source establishes that one approach fits every teen.