Children’s data cannot be treated as ordinary signup data with a date-of-birth field added later.
Design the product around age risk, guardian verification and restricted data use before launch.
Classify child-facing features.
Age-risk assessment.
Treating ‘13+’ as Indian legal threshold.
The final Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 were notified on 14 November 2025 with phased commencement. As of 25 June 2026, organisations should distinguish provisions already commenced from operational duties scheduled for later dates, while continuing to comply with the IT Act, CERT-In directions and sectoral rules already in force.
The Act defines a child as an individual under eighteen and restricts processing likely to cause detrimental effects, tracking or behavioural monitoring, and targeted advertising, subject to the law and notified exceptions.
Verifiable parental consent and age-assurance design must balance reliability, data minimisation and accessibility.
| Area | What to establish | Operating rule |
|---|---|---|
| Audience | Child, parent, teacher or mixed user base. | Map actual users. |
| Age | Age signal and assurance method. | Avoid excess data. |
| Consent | Parent or lawful guardian evidence. | Retain proof. |
| Use | Learning, safety, profiling or advertising. | Restrict high-risk uses. |
Privacy governance should connect the personal data, individual, purpose, collection point, system, owner, recipient, access role, retention trigger and incident dependency. A policy that cannot be traced to this chain is difficult to operate.
Create a dated legal matrix rather than one status label. Record the DPDP provision, commencement date, present readiness action, current IT or sectoral obligation and the evidence owner.
Design controls in the product and system. A written rule cannot stop an SDK from firing, a shared folder from exposing payroll, or a vendor from retaining deleted users unless technology and operations enforce it.
Evidence should be generated during normal work: versioned notices, event logs, access approvals, request tickets, deletion reports, vendor registers, incident chronologies and management decisions.
Use proportionate identity and security checks. Excess verification creates more personal data, while weak verification can expose another person’s records or permit account takeover.
Every product release should trigger a privacy change review covering new fields, vendors, permissions, purposes, regions and retention.
Management reporting should show overdue evidence and control failures, not only the existence of policies.
Test the control using a real user journey from collection to deletion. Capture the notice shown, data stored, vendors called, employees with access, retention period and response if the user withdraws or complains.
Run a negative scenario: the vendor is breached, the user is a child, the employee exits, the phone is stolen, the data was inaccurate or the regulator asks for proof. Record which control fails.
Check that system records and public wording agree. Product forms, privacy notice, CRM fields, SDK behaviour, vendor contracts and support scripts should describe the same processing.
Assign a named owner and internal deadline for every gap. A risk register without funded action and closure evidence becomes an archive of known failures.
Retain the rejected alternatives and decision basis. This is especially important where the law is in phased commencement or a proportionate technical method is selected.
Start with the system owner, privacy or security owner and the documented data flow. Preserve records before making changes, and separate current statutory reporting from future DPDP readiness.
For a breach, financial fraud, rights dispute, children’s-data issue or regulated-sector event, involve qualified legal, cyber, forensic and sector specialists and use the applicable official reporting or grievance channel.