Skip to main content
Home/DPDP Act/Chapter II — Obligations of Data Fiduciary/Section 9 — Processing of Personal Data of Children
DPDP Act, 2023 · Chapter II · Section 9 of 44

Section 9: Processing of Personal Data of Children

Section 9 sets a strict default for anyone under eighteen: verifiable parental consent before processing, an outright ban on tracking, behavioural monitoring and targeted advertising directed at children, and a path for the Central Government to relax these rules for specific, verifiably safe use cases.

Effective from 13 May 2027Reviewed September 2026
StatusEffective 13 May 2027
Chapter II · Obligations of Data Fiduciary

Quick summary

In plain terms: Before processing a child's (or a person with disability's) personal data, a Data Fiduciary must obtain verifiable consent from the parent or lawful guardian. Processing that could harm a child's wellbeing is banned outright, as is tracking, behavioural monitoring or targeted advertising directed at children. The Central Government can carve out specific classes of Fiduciaries or purposes from these requirements, and can exempt Fiduciaries from the tracking/monitoring ban for users above a notified age if their processing is verifiably safe.

What Section 9 says

  • Sub-section (1) — before processing personal data of a child, or of a person with disability who has a lawful guardian, the Data Fiduciary must obtain verifiable consent of the parent or the lawful guardian, in the prescribed manner — and “consent of the parent” includes consent of a lawful guardian, wherever applicable.
  • Sub-section (2) — a Data Fiduciary shall not process a child's personal data in a manner likely to cause any detrimental effect on the child's wellbeing.
  • Sub-section (3) — a Data Fiduciary shall not undertake tracking or behavioural monitoring of children, or targeted advertising directed at children.
  • Sub-section (4) — sub-sections (1) and (3) don't apply to processing of a child's data by such classes of Data Fiduciaries, or for such purposes, and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed.
  • Sub-section (5) — if satisfied that a Data Fiduciary has ensured its processing of children's data is done in a verifiably safe manner, the Central Government may notify, for that Fiduciary, an age above which it's exempt from all or any of the obligations under sub-sections (1) and (3), specifying that age in the notification.

Breaking it down

  • Sub-s. (1)

    Required

    Verifiable consent of a parent or lawful guardian before any processing.

  • Sub-s. (2)–(3)

    Banned

    Harmful processing, tracking, behavioural monitoring and targeted advertising.

  • Sub-s. (4)–(5)

    Exemptions

    Prescribed classes or purposes, or a notified age for a verifiably safe Fiduciary.

The age threshold is fixed by the Act's own definition, not left flexible. Section 2(f) defines “child” as anyone who hasn't completed eighteen years — a stricter line than the 13-16 range common in some other jurisdictions' data protection laws.

“Verifiable” consent is a deliberately higher bar than ordinary consent. The Act requires the parent's or guardian's consent be verifiable, not just collected — the specific verification mechanics (what counts as adequate verification) are left to the DPDP Rules to prescribe.

The tracking/monitoring/targeted-advertising ban is absolute where it applies, not a consent-based opt-in. Unlike sub-section (1), which can be satisfied by obtaining valid parental consent, sub-section (3) is a flat prohibition — there's no consent mechanism that makes behavioural tracking or targeted advertising to children lawful under this section.

Two separate escape hatches exist, for different reasons. Sub-section (4) lets the government carve out specific, narrower classes or purposes (for example, an educational platform's limited internal progress-tracking might be treated differently from open-ended behavioural profiling) from both the consent and the anti-tracking requirements. Sub-section (5) is different: it's a Fiduciary-specific exemption for users above a notified age (not necessarily eighteen), granted only where the government is satisfied the Fiduciary's processing is verifiably safe — a case-by-case route, not a general carve-out.

Why this section matters

Children's data provisions are consistently among the most strictly enforced parts of comparable data protection regimes worldwide, and Section 9 signals the same priority here: verifiable (not just clicked-through) consent, a flat ban on the advertising techniques platforms most commonly build around engagement and monetisation when it comes to minors, and government-controlled (not self-certified) exceptions. Any product with users who could plausibly be under eighteen needs this section built into its architecture from the start, not retrofitted later.

Real-world example

Example

Playnest, an ed-tech platform used by both schoolchildren and adult learners

Playnest's trust-and-safety team designs its age-handling logic around Section 9:

  • A 12-year-old signs up through a school-issued account — verifiable parental or guardian consent is required under sub-section (1) before Playnest can process their data at all — a school-managed rollout still needs this built in, not assumed to be covered by the school's own arrangements unless the Rules specifically prescribe otherwise under sub-section (4).
  • Playnest wants to show the 12-year-old ads for other apps based on their in-app behaviour — flatly prohibited by sub-section (3), regardless of what consent is on file — this isn't something parental consent can unlock.
  • A 17-year-old on the verge of turning 18 uses a verified, ID-checked adult-learning track with no behavioural profiling at all — if Playnest can demonstrate this track is verifiably safe, it could apply for a Central Government notification under sub-section (5) exempting that specific cohort from sub-sections (1) and (3) obligations.

Who needs to care about this section

  • Any consumer platform with users who could be under 18 — age assurance and verifiable parental consent need to be built into onboarding, not bolted on later.
  • Ad-tech and growth teams — sub-section (3)'s ban on targeted advertising to children affects ad-targeting and personalisation systems directly, and can't be consented around.
  • Ed-tech and youth-focused platforms — sub-section (4)'s prescribed carve-outs are worth tracking closely in the Rules, since they can materially change what's required for education-specific processing.

Common questions

Can a child consent to processing themselves once they're old enough to use an app independently?
Under sub-section (1), consent must come from a parent or lawful guardian for anyone who is a “child” under the Act's definition — under eighteen — there's no self-consent pathway for minors in this section.
Is it enough to just ask users to confirm they're over 18 at signup?
Sub-section (1) requires verifiable consent from a parent or guardian when the user is in fact a child; a simple self-declared age checkbox, without more, is unlikely to meet a verifiability standard, though the precise verification mechanics are left to the Rules.
Can we ever show ads to teenage users?
Not targeted advertising directed at children, which sub-section (3) prohibits outright, unless a specific prescribed exemption under sub-section (4) or a Central Government notification under sub-section (5) applies.