Sharenting Ruling in Italy: Both Parents Must Consent [2026]

A mother posts photos of her two young children on her private Facebook profile. She means well, she posts only a few, and only friends can see them. Italy's data protection authority still called it unlawful. In a decision dated April 29, 2026, the Garante warned the mother and banned further posts of the children's images unless both parents consent, because the father had not.

The ruling is one of the clearest statements yet that sharenting, the habit of parents posting their children's lives online, is a data-protection issue and not just a family habit. This guide explains what the Garante decided, why the usual defenses failed, how far the reasoning reaches, and how to share family video without exposing your kids. If you post clips of children, BGBlur's face blur covers their faces in seconds.

TL;DR: The Italian Sharenting Ruling

What Did the Garante Actually Decide?

According to the Garante's decision no. 314 of April 29, 2026, a father filed a complaint after his ex-wife published photographs of their two children, both under 14, on her Facebook profile without his consent. He argued the repeated posting exposed the children to risks of abuse and could compromise their future digital autonomy. The mother said her purposes were "affectionate and relational."

The Garante ruled the processing unlawful. Its core statement is that publishing images of minors on social networks "requires the prior consent of both parents" (in Italian, "il preventivo consenso di entrambi i genitori"). It issued an ammonimento, a formal warning, and prohibited the mother from further publishing the children's images on social networks without both parents' consent. The legal basis it cited includes GDPR articles 5(1)(a) (lawfulness, fairness and transparency), 6(1)(a) (consent) and 8 (children's consent), together with article 2-quinquies of the Italian Privacy Code, which sets the digital-consent age at 14.

Why Didn't "Private Profile" and "Good Intentions" Work?

The mother offered three defenses. The Garante rejected all three:

1. Affectionate purpose. Loving intent doesn't replace consent when the other parent holds equal parental responsibility.
2. Only a few neutral photos. A small number of harmless-looking images doesn't lower the consent requirement.
3. A private profile. The Garante said the closed nature of the profile could not be proven, because content can be shared onward and reach third parties.

That third point applies to everyone. "Friends only" is a setting, not a guarantee: friends can screenshot, tag, reshare or leave the audience open by accident, and platforms change defaults. From a data-protection standpoint, a photo shared to any audience is still personal data being disclosed.

What Does the Ruling Mean for Other Parents?

The immediate parties were separated parents in a dispute, but the principle is broader, as reporting on the decision by Dirigentiscuola notes. It matters in several situations:

• Separated or divorced parents. Disagreements over posting are now a data-protection question as well as a family-law one.
• Married parents who disagree. Where one parent objects, the ruling's logic favors not posting.
• Grandparents, relatives and friends. Publishing a child's photo is an act with legal weight for anyone, though the ruling addresses parental responsibility specifically.
• Schools and clubs. Reporting on the decision says consent forms for publishing students' photos should be signed by both parents and meet institutional necessity standards.

For related coverage, see our guides on posting photos of your baby on social media and blurring other people's kids in school sports videos.

Does This Apply Outside Italy?

Not directly. The decision applies Italian law, including the Privacy Code's age-14 threshold, and it binds the parties in front of the Garante. But it rests on the GDPR, which applies across the EU, so other authorities and courts may reason similarly. The GDPR's default digital-consent age is 16, and each country can lower it to no less than 13, so the exact age and the parental-consent mechanics differ by country.

In the United States the picture is different. The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act limits what online services collect from children under 13; it doesn't regulate a parent's own posts. Family courts, though, frequently address photo-posting in custody orders. Our guide to COPPA and child privacy covers the U.S. framework. Whatever your jurisdiction, the safest assumption is that a child's image is sensitive and that disagreement between the people responsible for the child is a red flag.

How Do I Share Family Video Without Exposing My Kids?

Ask before you post, and when in doubt, take the face out. Here is a practical checklist:

1. Get agreement in writing from everyone with parental responsibility, even by message.
2. Involve the child where age-appropriate, especially past 13 or 14.
3. Limit the audience, but don't rely on it as the only protection.
4. Blur faces when consent is missing, disputed or unclear.
5. Remove identifying details: school logos, street signs, names on jerseys, and location tags.

How to blur children's faces in a video

1. Open BGBlur and upload your clip (MP4, MOV or M4V up to 4K).
2. Let the AI detect every face automatically. Motion tracking keeps a running or turning child covered across the whole clip.
3. Choose a strong blur, then preview the result and check group shots.
4. Export. Processed files are deleted within 24 hours. For family footage you would rather not upload at all, the BGBlur desktop app blurs faces on your own computer.

For a step-by-step guide, see how to blur kids' faces in video before posting.

How Would the Ruling Apply in Everyday Situations?

The Garante decided one family's dispute, so these are applications of its reasoning, not rulings on each scenario. Treat them as cautious guidance and not legal advice.

A recurring theme is that the protection doesn't depend on whether the photo is embarrassing. The Garante rejected the argument that a small number of neutral photos lowers the requirement. The question is who has the right to decide, not how harmless the image looks.

What Are the Risks Parents Cite When They Object?

In the decision, the father argued that repeated posting exposed the children to abuse risks and could undermine their future digital autonomy. Those concerns are common, and they are why authorities take sharenting seriously:

• Permanence. Posts get copied, screenshotted and scraped, so a photo can outlive a deletion.
• Identification. Faces, uniforms, locations and names combine to identify a child, and face-search tools can match a face found online to other images.
• Future autonomy. A child grows up with a digital footprint they didn't choose. Our post on face scraping and the Clearview AI ruling explains how public photos end up in searchable databases.
• Manipulation. AI tools make it easier to alter or misuse a child's image.

The practical answer to all four is the same: share less, share with fewer people, and cover the face when you do share.

What Should Schools, Clubs and Businesses Do?

Organizations that publish images of minors should treat this decision as a prompt to check their processes:

• Review release forms. Confirm that consent is captured from both parents where the child is under the relevant age.
• Have a fallback. If consent is missing for one child in a group video, blur that child rather than pulling the whole video.
• Record decisions. Keep evidence of consent and its scope.
• Limit retention. Remove old posts when consent is withdrawn.

Honest Limitations

I read the Garante's decision through the official record and reporting on it; I am not a lawyer, and this is general information, not legal advice. The ruling is Italian, concerns one family's facts, and doesn't automatically bind authorities elsewhere. Blurring a child's face reduces identification from the face, but a name in a caption, a school uniform or a recognizable location can still identify a child, and blur is not a substitute for consent where the law requires it.

The Bottom Line

Italy's Garante has said plainly that posting photos of children under 14 on social networks requires the prior consent of both parents, and that affectionate intent, a small number of photos and a private profile don't change that. Whether or not you live in Italy, the practical lesson is to get everyone's agreement and, when in doubt, blur the child's face before you post. Try BGBlur's face blur on your next family clip.