Better Internet for Kids

1. Mapping national responses through the BIK Policy monitor

The BIK Policy monitor provides a structured tool for tracking and comparing the national implementation of the BIK+ strategy across EU Member States, Iceland, and Norway, enabling a systematic overview of the state of BIK-related policies across Europe.

National-level data are collected through a standardised questionnaire completed by national contacts nominated by the Expert Group on Safer Internet for Children. Policy monitor findings are presented through a mapping of policies and actions, the creation of a BIK Index, and country profiles outlining initiatives and policy developments. These are available on the BIK portal.

The added value of the Policy monitor lies in its comparability: harmonised indicators allow benchmarking across 29 countries, while longitudinal tracking since the first cycles provides insight into developments over time. By combining information on policy frameworks, legislation, research, prevention programmes, and support mechanisms, the Policy monitor offers a robust evidence base for identifying trends, highlighting transferable practices, and supporting policy responses to emerging issues such as cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying features in several ways across the Policy monitor, reflecting its cross-cutting importance. It is captured through national policy frameworks and research programmes, where many countries embed the issue within broader child online safety strategies, action plans, or children’s rights policies. It also appears under chapter 1 of the Policy monitor report on safe digital experiences, which examines legal and administrative measures, definitions of online harms, and reporting and redress mechanisms. In parallel, chapter 2 on digital empowerment covers school-based anti-bullying and prevention policies, digital literacy and citizenship education, teacher training, awareness-raising campaigns, and other preventive initiatives linked to children’s well-being.

This article draws on preliminary findings from the 2025-26 cycle of the BIK Policy monitor; the full report of which will be published in May 2026. It highlights several emerging patterns in how countries across Europe are responding to cyberbullying, including greater emphasis on legal recognition, the growing role of schools as first responders, the expansion of reporting and redress mechanisms, and closer links between regulators, Digital Services Coordinators (DSCs), and Safer Internet Centres (SICs). 

2. Cyberbullying today: context and relevance

According to the Joint Research Centre (JRC), cyberbullying is characterised by several key features, including aggressive or hostile behaviour, the use of digital technologies, an imbalance of power, repeated exposure to harmful experiences, and harm resulting from the intention to cause suffering. This is broadly consistent with the common understanding introduced in the EU Action plan against cyberbullying, which describes cyberbullying as behaviour carried out through digital technologies, with the primary intention or the effect of recurrently or continuously humiliating, socially excluding, abusing, harassing or harming, in particular, children or young people.

Cyberbullying is also linked with adverse effects on well-being and mental health, including anxiety, stress, and loneliness, particularly among adolescents and young adults. Unlike traditional bullying, cyberbullying can reach a wide audience instantly and leave permanent digital traces, making it harder for victims to escape or recover. In addition, offenders may be difficult to identify as they can hide their identities online.  

The number of children and young people affected by cyberbullying remains at a high level, underscoring the scale of the problem. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), 1 in 6 adolescents have been found to have experienced cyberbullying, and 1 in 8 admit to having participated in it. In the European context, about one in 20 adolescents aged between 9 and 16 reports being bullied online at least once a month. Despite a range of preventive initiatives, the prevalence of cyberbullying continues to rise.

Support services further confirm the extent of the problem, especially among teenagers (aged 12 to 18) who are the group most likely to reach out to helplines, accounting for almost two-thirds of all contacts. The Insafe network of Safer Internet Centres, covering multiple countries across Europe, consistently ranks cyberbullying among the most frequently reported issues in calls to its helplines. In the fourth quarter of 2025 (October-December), cyberbullying accounted for 14 per cent of just under 15,000 total contacts by helplines, the single most common reason for outreach. This aligns with patterns seen throughout 2025, where cyberbullying consistently accounted for 14-17 per cent of contacts in previous quarters. Platforms most frequently implicated include messaging platforms (44 per cent via WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal) and social media (29 per cent), underscoring how everyday communication tools serve as primary platforms for cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying continues to evolve in tandem with rapidly changing platforms, technologies, and youth usage patterns. Younger people are increasingly drawn to short-form, highly visual content on platforms such as TikTok, Snapchat, and Instagram Reels. These platforms frequently employ various “addictive design” features, such as infinite scroll, autoplay, constant push notifications, and private/group messaging, within immersive environments that heighten user engagement. These same features, however, also facilitate the rapid dissemination of harmful material. Through anonymous profiles, exclusion from chats, manipulated images/videos, deepfakes, or AI-generated content, harassment has become more pervasive and difficult to trace. As digital tools have become inseparable from social, educational, and recreational life, traditional bullying has evolved into more complex threats, including sextortion, e-crime (hacking, scams), grooming, and exposure to harmful content.

The sections below highlight key patterns and measures with practical implications for stakeholders, which may shape the fight against cyberbullying in the future.

3. Key patterns and emerging approaches in the latest cycle

3.1. Legal recognition

The BIK Policy monitor suggests that legal recognition of cyberbullying is becoming more prominent across Europe. In the 2025-26 cycle, 21 countries report having specific laws in place to render cyberbullying illegal, up from 18 in the previous cycle.

However, “legal coverage” does not always take the same form. In some countries, cyberbullying is addressed through explicit criminal-law provisions (i.e., by criminalising specific behaviours under the penal code). In others, it is addressed more indirectly through existing offences that can apply to online conduct, such as harassment, stalking, defamation, or coercion, rather than through a standalone cyberbullying act.

The Policy monitor also highlights a third route: cyberbullying may be covered by educational or teaching environment legislation, which requires schools to implement anti-bullying protocols and treat digital bullying as equivalent to offline bullying. For instance, in Denmark, cyberbullying is addressed through education legislation: the Educational Environment Act requires schools to have local anti-bullying strategies that explicitly cover digital bullying. 

These different legal routes reflect the fact that cyberbullying often sits across several domains at once: it can involve behaviour that is harmful but not always criminal; it can take place between pupils and classmates; and it can escalate to situations that require formal intervention and specialist support. As a result, legal frameworks may prioritise different objectives, from setting criminal thresholds for serious cases to clarifying school responsibilities and response procedures.

Overall, the picture is one of growing legal attention, but with diverse legal routes. For policymakers and practitioners, this diversity matters because it shapes what happens after an incident is reported: whether it is treated mainly as a school matter, a child-protection concern, or a criminal offence; what conditions have to be met before the case is moved from an informal/school-level response to a more formal response by another authority; and which body is responsible for taking the next steps.

3.2 School as first responders

Alongside legal measures, the BIK Policy monitor highlights a strengthening trend towards formal school protocols for handling cyberbullying incidents. In practice, this means that schools are increasingly expected to act as the first point of response, with clearer roles and procedures for receiving reports, recording incidents, and taking initial steps as part of wider anti-bullying duties. A more structured approach ensures that pupils and parents know where to seek help, that staff understand how to record and handle incidents, and that schools have clear procedures for when and how to involve external support services – such as helplines or child protection services – depending on the situation.

3.3 Prevention matters

Beyond procedures for handling incidents in schools, the BIK Policy monitor shows a wider prevention trend: online safety and digital citizenship are increasingly being treated as a normal part of learning and support, rather than something addressed only through (occasional) campaigns. Online safety education is now reported as integrated into primary and secondary curricula in 26 countries, up from 20 in 2024.

Prevention is also supported through capacity-building for adults around children. The BIK Policy monitor highlights professional development for teachers, including large-scale online training, and notes that 24 countries report programmes to support parents’ digital literacy and online safety skills. These measures matter because parents and educators are often the first people children turn to when something goes wrong online, and how they respond can affect the extent to which children get help early or whether the situation escalates.

Alongside curriculum integration and training, the BIK Policy monitor also points to prevention approaches that work through peers and communities. These aim to strengthen positive norms in the spaces where young people spend time, encourage early help-seeking, and reduce harm before situations escalate.

Overall, the picture is of prevention becoming more multi-layered: combining education and skills, adult capacity-building, and peer- and community-based initiatives. This complements legal frameworks and response procedures by aiming to reduce incidents upstream and by making it easier for children to recognise problems early and seek help in trusted ways.

3.4 Complaints handling mechanisms

Formal complaints-handling mechanisms relevant for cyberbullying are expanding as the Digital Services Act (DSA) is implemented across the EU. While platforms have responsibilities under the DSA to provide reporting tools and act on illegal content, countries are also strengthening the wider safety net by establishing national complaint mechanisms that allow individuals and organisations to raise concerns with an administrative body when problems persist or when platform responses are inadequate. The 2025-26 cycle of the BIK Policy Monitor shows continued progress in this area. Twenty-four countries report that such complaint-handling mechanisms are already available, up from 21 in 2024, while a further two report that mechanisms are currently under development. These mechanisms are important because they provide an additional route for seeking remedies beyond platform-level reporting tools, particularly when concerns relate to harmful online content or platform negligence (for example, ineffective moderation or ignored reports). The Policy monitor also notes that Digital Services Coordinators (DSCs) are increasingly described as escalation points in this wider complaints-handling landscape. In addition, the designation of Trusted Flaggers (including Safer Internet Centres and other specialised NGOs designated to identify illegal online content) is mentioned as another way in which complaint-handling has expanded.

Overall, the Policy monitor shows a broader set of redress options becoming available, closely linked to the implementation of the DSA and its governance structure. In practice, the key issue is whether these routes are understandable and accessible to users, including children and families, and whether they lead to timely follow-up across the different administrative pathways.

3.5 Child-friendly help-seeking channels

The BIK Policy monitor finds that, beyond more formal administrative and complaints mechanisms, many European countries are putting greater emphasis on more accessible, age-appropriate channels that give children additional ways to seek help and report concerns. These channels are designed to make it simpler and less intimidating for children to seek help, report concerns about cyberbullying or other online harms, preserve evidence (like screenshots or details of incidents), and connect directly to support services, often without requiring adult involvement.

The examples reported by European countries are diverse, including dedicated apps, child-friendly reporting pages hosted by SICs, ombuds-type services where minors can raise concerns, and public portals handling complaints. A common feature is that these channels aim to support children not only in reporting, but also in understanding options and accessing support – including in situations where the illegality of the behaviour may not be immediately clear.

These accessible channels help tackle underreporting and usability barriers by empowering children to act independently and feel heard. However, their true impact relies on timely follow-up, swift responses from helplines, authorities, or platforms, and clear pathways to support, such as counselling, evidence storage, or escalation to formal redress. Without these, even the best-designed tools risk eroding trust if children perceive no meaningful outcome.

3.6 Coordination between regulators/DSCs and SICs

As far as the relationship between regulatory bodies and SICs is concerned, the Policy monitor suggests that it is becoming more structured. In the 2025–26 cycle, 18 countries report a continuous working relationship between the national DSC (or other competent DSA authority) and the SIC, while seven report that such cooperation is currently in development.

This matters because SICs are close to children through helplines, hotlines and awareness work, while DSCs sit within the governance and oversight framework for platform responsibilities. A more systematic working relationship can therefore help bridge protection and enforcement structures with support services. The Policy monitor also notes that Trusted Flagger designation can be one driver of more regular technical and legal exchange, and that cooperation can take different forms, from structured exchanges to joint awareness and education activities.

3.7 Cyberbullying is evolving

The Policy monitor highlights that cyberbullying and related harms are evolving as digital environments change. In this regard, it also shows that some countries are updating how they define and classify harmful content/practices. For instance, some national frameworks on online harms have been updated to explicitly include AI-generated non-consensual images as well as the practice of sharing private identifying information about an individual or organisation (“doxing”).

While these phenomena are not always labelled as “cyberbullying”, they can be closely connected to cyberbullying dynamics in practice – particularly where they are used to humiliate, threaten, or repeatedly target a child or young person. This reinforces the point that policy responses often need to address cyberbullying not only as a standalone category, but also through related harm types that can function as tools of harassment or abuse.

4. Practical implications for stakeholders

In line with the recommendations of the Action Plan against cyberbullying, the Policy monitor shows a range of measures that European countries are putting in place (or strengthening) to address cyberbullying through different routes. These developments point to a shift towards a more coordinated approach across the wider ecosystem – from schools to regulatory bodies – with a focus on overcoming some of the fragmentation that has hampered previous prevention, reporting, and follow-up efforts. 

Across countries, schools are increasingly treated as primary hubs for prevention, response and support. Schools provide essential education and awareness-raising initiatives that are central to tackling cyberbullying. Implementing curricula that promote digital citizenship, healthy online habits and well-being are accordingly key areas of activity that are regarded as sustainable and effective. Alongside prevention, schools also provide crucial direct support to victims and are frequently the first point of response. Schools also act as a key link to other national support services. Coordinating with SIC helplines, for example, facilitated by the planned EU-wide online safety app, will enable schools to implement the necessary protocols to support victims and achieve speedier responses. 

For policymakers, the Policy monitor points to a shift towards more structured national approaches: clearer legal recognition through different routes, more formal school procedures, and expanding reporting and redress mechanisms. In line with the Action plan’s emphasis on coordination, this highlights a practical coordination task. Because countries address cyberbullying through different legal and policy routes, it is not always obvious who takes the lead when an incident is reported, what threshold triggers escalation beyond the school, and how victims are connected to the right support. In practice, this makes it important to have clear roles and referral pathways across education, child protection, and (where relevant) justice services, as well as more consistent recording of incidents so trends can be tracked over time.

On the regulatory side, the Policy monitor points to a clearer and more institutionalised complaints and redress landscape, with administrative complaint routes expanding and DSCs increasingly referenced as escalation points as DSA implementation progresses. This is in line with the Action plan’s focus on improving reporting and support pathways and strengthening cooperation between key actors. In practice, closer working relationships between DSCs and SICs can help connect regulatory oversight with insight from helplines and awareness work, while Trusted Flagger designations can support more direct cooperation and clearer escalation routes when users need to move beyond platform-level reporting.

For online platforms, the Policy monitor points to a wider ecosystem in which reporting, complaints-handling and child-friendly help-seeking routes are essential to safe digital protection. This aligns with the Action plan’s emphasis on improving reporting and support pathways for children. The practical implication is that ‘safety by design’ and user support need to work for children in real settings: reporting and complaint tools should be easy to find and use, available in the child’s local language, and provide clear feedback on what happens next. The trends also underline the need to keep pace with evolving forms of harm that can intersect with cyberbullying dynamics (for example, deepfakes), so that protections, reporting routes and follow-up remain fit for current realities.

5. Conclusion

In summary, the overall direction is towards a stronger safety net around children and their parents and carers, where they can feel more empowered as digital citizens. In practice, this should mean clearer and more visible routes for children to seek help, more user-friendly reporting and complaints systems, and stronger links between reporting and follow-up support. As more channels emerge (through schools, helplines, child-friendly tools, and administrative redress routes), the key question will be whether children experience these as a coherent pathway that leads to timely assistance and appropriate referrals, rather than a set of disconnected options.

Interested in more?

Explore other relevant research in the Research and reports directory of the BIK Knowledge hub. Together with the BIK Policy monitor, it is updated annually and collates research that informs the implementation of the BIK+ strategy across the EU Member States, Iceland, and Norway.