Over the past few months, the National Assembly of Azerbaijan has adopted several complementary amendments concerning the regulation of the internet and social media. At first glance, these changes appear to address different issues. One of them concerns restrictions on people under the age of 16 opening social media accounts. Another requires foreign social media platforms to register or establish a local representative office in Azerbaijan. A further amendment grants state authorities additional grounds to temporarily block internet resources without a court order.
Viewed individually, each of these amendments is presented as serving a different purpose. Official justifications emphasize protecting children in the digital environment, preventing harmful content, safeguarding personal data, combating disinformation, and ensuring information security. These objectives are also cited as the main rationale in the explanatory notes accompanying the latest amendments adopted by the National Assembly.
However, when these amendments are considered together, a broader picture emerges. The gradual expansion of the legal grounds for blocking websites in recent years, the adoption of the 2022 Law on Media, the tightening of restrictions in 2025 related to the concepts of “public morality” and “gross disrespect for society” on social media, the increased legal liability of social media users, and now the introduction of new legal obligations for social media platforms all appear to be different stages of the same legal process.
The scope of the new legislative package is quite broad. Under the proposed amendments, individuals under the age of 16 will not be allowed to create personal accounts on social media platforms that are subject to age restrictions. Platforms will be required to verify users’ ages, implement parental controls for users aged 16 to 18, register or establish a local representative office in Azerbaijan, and respond to requests from state authorities within the prescribed time limits. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in substantial fines, advertising bans, and the gradual reduction of internet traffic as sanctions.
At the same time, parliament has adopted another amendment to the Law on Information, Informatization and Protection of Information. The amendment expands the list of circumstances under which internet resources may be temporarily blocked without a court order. Previously, such blocking was only permitted in urgent cases where there was a threat to the legally protected interests of the state and society or a real danger to people’s lives and health. Under the new amendment, the list has been expanded to include the promotion of narcotic drugs, defamatory and insulting content, material that violates the right to privacy, and disinformation deemed to pose a threat to public safety.
These amendments are neither isolated nor one-off legal measures. Rather, they can be seen as a continuation of the regulatory approach to governing the digital environment that has developed over recent years. This is particularly evident given that the practice of blocking internet resources in Azerbaijan has expanded since 2017, while a new legal framework for the media sector was established with the adoption of the Law on Media in 2022, further broadening state regulation.
What is the primary objective of these latest legal amendments? Is the state genuinely seeking to protect children and users from digital risks, or is it also expanding its legal and technical control over the internet and social media? This question has become one of the most widely debated aspects of the new legislative package.
This article examines the latest legal amendments not in isolation, but against the backdrop of the laws adopted over the past decade and the way they have been implemented in practice. Its aim is to assess the long-term impact of these legal changes on Azerbaijan’s digital space, media freedom, and freedom of expression.
How has the legal framework tightened?
The legal regulation of the internet and social media in Azerbaijan did not emerge overnight. A review of the laws adopted in recent years and their implementation shows that the state has gradually expanded its control over the digital environment. This process initially targeted websites, then online media, followed by content shared on social media, and now extends directly to the platforms themselves.
2017: A new legal mechanism for blocking websites
Restriction of Freedom of Expression – Illustration by ChatGPT
The first major turning point in this process came in 2017.
That year, Article 13-3 was added to the Law on Information, Informatization and Protection of Information. The amendment granted the relevant executive authority the power, in urgent cases, to temporarily restrict access to internet resources without a court order. Under the law, however, the authority was required to apply to a court within five days of imposing such a restriction.
The legislation justified this power only in cases where there was a threat to “the legally protected interests of the state and society” or a “real danger to people’s lives and health.”
That same year, the mechanism was put into practice. Access to the websites of Meydan TV, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s Azerbaijani Service (AzadliqRadiosu), the Azadliq newspaper, Turan TV, and the Azerbaijan Hour project was blocked. The Sabail District Court later upheld the blocking of these websites. Although state authorities accused the outlets of disseminating information contrary to the interests of the state, the media organizations rejected the allegations and argued that the decision lacked a legal basis.
The incident is widely regarded as the first large-scale example of website blocking in Azerbaijan.
Leyla Mustafayeva, an Azerbaijani journalist living in Germany and editor-in-chief of the Qazetchi website, believes that the media- and internet-related laws adopted in Azerbaijan in recent years have primarily served to restrict the ability of independent media to operate.
According to her, the blocking of independent news websites since 2017 has been part of the same policy.
Leyla Mustafayeva. Photo: VOA
“The steps taken by the Azerbaijani government have been aimed less at regulating the operation of the media than at restricting the activities of independent media. The websites that have been blocked are mainly media outlets operating from abroad, adhering to the ethical principles of journalism, and maintaining a critical editorial stance. Because the government has been unable to control them, it has chosen to block these websites instead,” she said.
Subsequent years: The grounds for blocking were expanded
The 2017 amendment was only the beginning.
In the years that followed, the Law on Information, Informatization and Protection of Information was amended several times. As a result, the legal grounds for state intervention against internet resources were gradually expanded.
For example, successive amendments introduced new provisions covering information products considered harmful to children, illegal gambling, certain categories of prohibited content, and false information deemed to be of public significance.
In 2025, another amendment added content that “insults public morality” or “expresses blatant disrespect for society” to the list of prohibited categories of information on internet resources. At the same time, corresponding liability provisions were introduced into the Code of Administrative Offences.
As a result, mechanisms for blocking and intervening in online content that were originally intended primarily for emergency situations gradually came to be applied in a much broader range of circumstances.
2022: The law on media changed the rules for digital media
The next stage in the legal regulation of the internet came with the adoption of the Law on Media in 2022. For the first time, the law established a separate legal framework for online media and created the Media Register.
Media. Photo: monticello/Shutterstock
According to the official explanation, the law was intended to establish the legal foundations of media activity, promote professional journalism, and increase transparency in the media sector. It redefined the concept of a journalist, the rights and obligations of media entities, accreditation procedures, and the relationship between the state and the media.
One of the most debated innovations was the creation of the Media Register.
To be included in the register, media organizations and journalists were required to meet a number of legal criteria, including legal registration, maintaining a permanent editorial office, employment under a labor contract, higher education qualifications, and other professional requirements set out in the law. While media entities included in the register gained access to certain rights and privileges, media organizations and journalists that were not registered faced significant practical restrictions.
In the years that followed, applications from a number of independent media organizations seeking inclusion in the Media Register were rejected. The Media Development Agency (MEDIA) justified these decisions by arguing that the applicants did not meet the criteria established by the law.
Independent media representatives, however, argued that although the register was presented as a voluntary mechanism, in practice it had become an administrative tool for controlling access to the media market.
The process did not stop with registration.
Beginning in 2023, the Media Development Agency (MEDIA) started filing lawsuits seeking the suspension of certain online media outlets operating outside the Media Register.
Court rulings subsequently terminated the activities of several online media outlets or revoked their legal entity status. The official justification was that these outlets were not operating in compliance with the requirements of the Law on Media.
Media law experts, however, argued that these decisions could weaken media pluralism and significantly restrict the ability of media organizations operating outside the state registration system to function.
The Venice Commission and the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media stated that several provisions of the law should be brought into line with European standards on freedom of expression and media pluralism. In their view, the Media Register and the mandatory criteria established for journalists could have a negative impact on the operation of independent media.
At this stage, legal oversight began to extend beyond the content of internet resources to the activities of media organizations themselves.
Leyla Mustafayeva views the creation of the Media Register as a continuation of this policy:
“The purpose of the Media Register is less to regulate the media than to restrict it. When we look at the legislative amendments adopted in recent years as a whole, we can see that they all follow the same direction.”
Thus, following the creation of the legal mechanism for blocking internet resources in 2017, a new phase began in 2022 in which the activities of media organizations themselves became subject to more detailed state regulation.
Then came the arrests of journalists
From the end of 2023 onward, the number of criminal cases brought against representatives of independent media in Azerbaijan increased rapidly.
The first arrests targeted staff members of AbzasMedia. They were followed by the detention of employees of Toplum TV, Meydan TV, and other independent media organizations in connection with various criminal cases.
At present, nearly 30 journalists and media workers are in detention in connection with different criminal proceedings.
Detained journalists and activists. Photo: Meydan TV
Most of them were initially charged with smuggling and later faced additional charges including illegal entrepreneurship, tax evasion, document forgery, money laundering, and other economic crimes.
All of the journalists deny the charges, maintaining that their arrests are directly linked to their professional activities.
These arrests have been criticized in numerous statements by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Reporters Without Borders, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the European Parliament, the Council of Europe Platform to Promote the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists, and other international organizations. These bodies have stated that the operating space for independent media in Azerbaijan has narrowed significantly in recent years.
As a result, much of the country’s alternative information space gradually shifted to social media. Against this backdrop, the government’s focus expanded beyond media organizations to the social media platforms themselves, their users, and the rules governing the operation of foreign platforms.
The next phase of this process came with the legislative amendments adopted in 2025 and 2026. The focus was no longer limited to the content being published, but extended to how social media platforms operate, the verification of users’ ages, the registration of platforms in Azerbaijan, and the further expansion of the grounds on which internet resources may be blocked without a court order.
Azerbaijani journalist and media expert Arzu Geybulla, whose work has appeared in international media outlets, says that the current measures are a continuation of the trend that began in 2017.
Arzu Geybulla. Photo: Personal archive
“In 2017, a legal mechanism was created to block websites. Then came the Media Register, followed by the arrests of journalists. Now the focus has shifted to the platform level. I see this as a consistent and cumulative project aimed at gradually closing down every channel of independent information.”
Administrative penalties against social media users for their posts
In recent years, social media users, bloggers, and activists who have shared critical content have been subject to administrative proceedings in Azerbaijan.
Particularly after the amendments made in early 2025 to the Law on Information, Informatization and Protection of Information and the Code of Administrative Offences, certain posts shared on social media began to be classified as “insulting public morality” or “expressing blatant disrespect toward society.”
Arrest. Source: Maxx-Studio/Shutterstock
Following these amendments, several social media users have been fined or detained under these provisions.
Independent lawyers point out that concepts such as “public morality,” “national moral values,” and “blatant disrespect toward society” do not have clear legal definitions in the legislation. In their view, this creates the possibility of the same legal provisions being applied differently in different cases.
2025–2026: The new stage of control is now directed at social media platforms
The latest amendments differ from previous legislation in one important respect.
While earlier laws mainly regulated content published on internet resources, media organizations, and the activities of journalists, the new amendments directly intervene in the operational mechanisms of social media platforms themselves.
Through the amendments adopted by the National Assembly, new provisions were added to the Law on Information, Informatization and Protection of Information, as well as to the Code of Administrative Offences.
The amendments cover several areas:
banning individuals under the age of 16 from creating accounts on social media platforms;
introducing parental control mechanisms for users aged 16–18;
requiring platforms to verify users’ ages;
requiring foreign social media platforms to register in Azerbaijan or establish a local representative office;
requiring platforms to respond to requests from state authorities within a specified timeframe;
imposing financial sanctions, advertising bans, and the gradual reduction of internet traffic on platforms that fail to comply with the requirements.
“In a country where people are regularly prosecuted for their social media posts, the accelerated information-sharing channels established between state authorities and platforms could become less a matter of administrative convenience and more a potential mechanism for identifying anonymous critics,” says Arzu Geybulla.
According to the draft law, age verification will initially be carried out through a user’s own declaration and later through a mobile phone number, email address, or bank card. The law also specifically states that the data collected for age verification must be deleted afterwards.
Platforms will also be required to take action within 24 hours if “harmful content” is detected.
One of the most notable changes concerns the requirements imposed on foreign platforms.
Under the law, social media providers serving users in Azerbaijan must be registered as legal entities in the country or establish an official representative office. In addition, they must create a dedicated contact center to communicate with state authorities and respond to requests from government bodies within five working days.
If these requirements are not met, platforms will first receive a written warning. They may then face financial penalties of 100,000 and 300,000 manats. If a platform continues to fail to comply with the law, it may be prohibited from placing advertisements, while its internet traffic may be gradually reduced by 20%, 50%, and up to 90%.
For the first time, this mechanism provides the state with a separate legal basis to exert technical influence over the operations of foreign social media platforms.
According to Arzu Geybulla, this step creates a new avenue of pressure on platforms:
“Mandatory local representative requirements are known among digital rights experts as a ‘hostage mechanism.’ When a platform has an office and employees inside the country, the state gains leverage over a company based abroad that it previously did not have. This leverage can later be used to enforce demands for content removal and the disclosure of user data.”
At the same time, the grounds for blocking websites are also being expanded
Alongside the changes concerning social media platforms, parliament has also tightened the rules governing the blocking of internet resources.
Under the amendments, temporary restrictions on access to internet resources without a court order can now be imposed in a wider range of cases.
Previously, such authority was limited to urgent situations where there was a threat to the legally protected interests of the state and society or a real danger to people’s lives and health.
Following the new amendments, however, this list has been significantly expanded.
The grounds for blocking websites before obtaining a court order now include:
information related to the production, use, and sale of narcotic drugs;
pornographic materials;
the promotion of gambling;
the promotion of suicide;
insulting and defamatory information;
information that violates the right to privacy;
films and games without age restrictions for children;
false information that may pose a serious threat to people’s health, property, or public safety.
According to the official explanation, the purpose of these amendments is to combat digital crime, disinformation, and harmful content for children more effectively and rapidly.
At the same time, a number of experts working in media law draw attention to another aspect of the changes.
They argue that expanding the grounds for blocking websites also increases the ability of executive authorities to intervene in internet resources without a court order. In particular, the continued possibility of broad interpretations of concepts such as “insult,” “defamation,” “violation of privacy,” and “false information threatening public safety” raises questions about how these provisions will be applied in practice in the future.
For the first time, three areas are combined within the same legal package
Looking at the laws adopted in previous years, the changes generally addressed separate areas.
In 2017, a mechanism for blocking websites was introduced.
In 2022, the activities of media entities and journalists were brought under a new legal framework.
In 2025, the concepts of “public morality” and “blatant disrespect toward society” were incorporated into legislation concerning social media.
In 2026, these areas are being combined into a single package for the first time.
The new amendments simultaneously apply to social media users, the operations of platforms, and the mechanisms for blocking internet resources.
From this perspective, the adopted package has a broader legal scope than previous amendments.
What could these changes alter in practice?
In the new legislative package, the digital safety of children is presented as the main justification. The presidential decree dated 27 February 2026 also identifies protecting children’s psychological well-being, creating age-appropriate content filters, strengthening parental controls, and improving digital literacy as key objectives.
The draft law does not consist solely of restrictions in this area. It also includes provisions such as developing digital safety lessons in schools, raising parents’ awareness, introducing additional privacy measures for users aged 16–18, and limiting manipulative platform design practices.
In this respect, part of the draft aligns with broader international discussions. However, the package adopted in Azerbaijan goes beyond these measures. Alongside age restrictions, it also changes the operating model of social media platforms. Unlike previous legislation, this introduces mechanisms that directly affect how platforms themselves function.
The internet has become the main space for public debate in Azerbaijan
To understand the significance of these changes, it is enough to look at the transformations that have taken place in the media environment in recent years.
Most television channels are characterized by state or pro-government positions. The influence of print media has significantly declined compared to previous years.
Some independent news websites have been blocked for years.
Against this backdrop, a large part of public debate has shifted to social media.
“YouTube.” Photo: Chayjitti Hongmanee/Shutterstock
“Facebook,” “YouTube,” “TikTok,” “Instagram,” “Telegram,” and “X” are no longer merely communication tools; they have also become among the main platforms for news consumption and public and political discussions.
This is precisely why the scope of the new legislative package appears broader than previous amendments.
While earlier legal changes mainly affected media organizations, the new rules also apply to millions of social media users and the operations of the platforms themselves.
“Unfortunately, the measures taken and the laws adopted regarding social media serve the same direction as well,” says Leyla Mustafayeva.
Platforms face a choice
One of the practical consequences of the new legislation will be how international platforms respond.
Companies such as Meta Platforms (Facebook and Instagram), Google (YouTube), TikTok, and X Corp. face similar requirements in various countries around the world. In some countries, they establish local offices, while in other cases they reject such demands.
Until now, such broad legal obligations had not been imposed on global social networks operating in Azerbaijan.
If platforms refuse to comply with these requirements, mechanisms such as advertising bans and the reduction of internet traffic, as outlined in the law, could come into consideration.
This could directly affect users’ ability to access and use these platforms.
Dialogue with platforms has already begun
Even before the law comes into force, the government has begun expanding its engagement with international platforms.
A few days ago, Presidential Assistant Hikmet Hajiyev met with representatives of TikTok and Linkedin during the Shusha Global Media Forum. The meeting focused on the activities of digital platforms, combating disinformation, and ensuring a secure information environment.
Photo: Azərtac
Speaking at the same forum, Diana Ryan, TikTok’s Director of Public Policy and Government Relations for Eastern Europe, shared statistics on the platform’s content moderation practices in Azerbaijan.
According to her, more than 600,000 videos identified as violating platform rules were removed in Azerbaijan during the first six months of 2026. In 2025, this figure was 3.6 million videos.
Ryan stated that more than 60% of the content removed from the platform is currently detected automatically through artificial intelligence.
These figures show that global platforms are already carrying out large-scale content moderation in Azerbaijan based on their own internal rules. The new law, however, introduces additional legal obligations imposed by the state. Platforms may now be required to take into account not only their own community guidelines but also the requirements of Azerbaijani legislation.
Why is the operation of platforms being regulated separately?
One of the main questions surrounding the new draft law is this: if platforms such as TikTok, Meta, and YouTube already remove content and impose various restrictions on users based on their own internal rules, why are additional legal obligations being introduced?
Until now, platforms such as TikTok, Meta, and others have primarily operated according to their own terms of service and global policies. Under the new framework, however, they will also be required to comply with obligations arising from Azerbaijani legislation.
The practical impact of this model could extend to the platforms’ decision-making processes. The law establishes requirements for local representation, direct communication channels with state authorities, mandatory response deadlines, and sanction mechanisms. This indicates that legal relations between the state and digital platforms may become more institutionalized compared with the previous period.
Certain restrictions are already being observed in practice
Although the new law regulating social media platforms has not yet entered into force, there have already been reports in recent years of certain restrictions being applied to specific platforms in relation to Azerbaijan.
For example, journalist Afgan Mukhtarli, who lives in Germany, stated that access to his TikTok account had been restricted only from within Azerbaijan. He also referred to this issue while explaining his concerns about the new draft law in comments to Meydan TV, describing it as an expansion of control over the internet.
Blogger Mehman Huseynov has also reported facing a similar issue. He has stated that his TikTok account was inaccessible from within Azerbaijan at various times.
These cases do not prove the existence of a large-scale blocking policy. However, they demonstrate that geographic restrictions on individual accounts are technically possible and that such practices have already been observed.
In this context, the additional obligations imposed on platforms by the new law raise further questions about how relations between platforms and the state will develop in the future.
Why are concerns about freedom of expression increasing?
Media experts, lawyers, and journalist organizations draw attention to another issue. In their view, it is difficult to assess the latest amendments separately from the laws adopted in previous years. Critics argue that the issue is not merely a matter of individual technical changes, but rather the broader legal regulation of the digital space.
Freedom of expression. Illustration: Meydan TV
Leyla Mustafayeva says that although the amendments are officially justified on the grounds of protecting minors, it is clear that they serve broader purposes as well.
“However, until now, the people who have been summoned by police or arrested for their activities on TikTok and other social media platforms have generally not been minors, but adults. This shows that the overall purpose of these measures is to restrict freedom of expression. It does not matter whether the issue concerns traditional media or social networks — the measures being applied are directed in the same direction.”
International practice and the Azerbaijani model: Where does the difference lie?
The Azerbaijani government also refers to international practice when justifying the new amendments. Indeed, in recent years, several countries have adopted new laws aimed at protecting children on social media.
However, the models applied in different countries are not the same.
Australia: The main focus is protecting children
In 2024, the Australian Parliament adopted a law restricting people under the age of 16 from maintaining accounts on social media platforms. Under the law, platforms must take “reasonable steps” to verify users’ ages. Companies that fail to comply with these requirements may face significant fines.
The main purpose of this model is presented as protecting children’s mental health and preventing online bullying and addiction.
The law does not require platforms to establish local offices in the country, respond to requests from state authorities, or create a permanent legal relationship mechanism with the government.
France: There is an age limit, but its implementation depends on EU Law
In 2023, France adopted a law on “digital maturity” and introduced a minimum age requirement of 15 for social media use.
However, the law has not been fully implemented.
The reason is that the activities of digital platforms within the European Union are already regulated under a unified legal framework – the Digital Services Act (DSA). Therefore, the French government is waiting for legal procedures with the European Commission before fully enforcing the national legislation.
This example demonstrates that within the European Union, member states do not regulate platforms independently but operate within common legal mechanisms.
European Union: The focus is on platform transparency
The Digital Services Act (DSA), which has been fully applicable since 2024, introduced new obligations for social media platforms.
The law requires large platforms to ensure the rapid removal of illegal content, assess algorithmic risks, provide transparency in advertising, and guarantee users’ right to submit complaints.
It also establishes mechanisms allowing users to challenge platform decisions, request explanations for those decisions, and benefit from independent auditing procedures.
In other words, the DSA does not only impose obligations on platforms; it also creates additional legal protections for users.
How does the Azerbaijani model differ?
The amendments adopted in Azerbaijan also contain elements found in international practice.
These include age restrictions, parental controls, enhanced privacy protections for children, limits on manipulative design practices, and measures to combat harmful content.
However, the Azerbaijani model is not limited solely to child protection.
At the same time, it establishes a new form of legal relationship between the state and international platforms and envisages the deeper integration of platforms into the country’s domestic regulatory system.
The main subject of debate
Supporters of the law argue that global technology companies must comply with the laws of the countries in which they operate, and that the safety of children and the rights of users should be protected more effectively.
Critics, however, argue that requiring platforms to establish local representation, mandating responses to government requests, and imposing sanctions on them could influence their decisions and create additional risks for freedom of expression online.
At present, there is no definitive answer to this question.
Media expert Arzu Geybulla says that the practical implementation of the law will determine its consequences.
“On paper, these amendments are based on well-known international models. But regulation is never limited to the text of the law alone. The key issue is the institutional environment in which that law is applied. This is precisely where Azerbaijan’s approach differs fundamentally from Germany, Australia, and the European Union.”
One point is already clear: the legislative changes adopted in recent years show that Azerbaijan is seeking to regulate the digital space not only as a technical infrastructure, but also through a broader legal framework. The new social media package can be considered one of the most extensive legal stages of this process to date.
If the new mechanisms are applied solely to ensure children’s safety, protect personal data, and promote transparent platform operations, the arguments put forward by the government may be validated.
However, if these powers are used to restrict freedom of expression, suppress critical content, or increase political influence over platforms, the legislative package will be viewed as another step toward placing Azerbaijan’s digital space under stricter state control.
“Since 2017, each of the steps taken has been presented under different names – modernization, media professionalism, combating disinformation, protecting children. But when all these steps are viewed together, the direction becomes clear: this is a transition from episodic censorship practices to a permanent, institutionalized control infrastructure,” says Arzu Geybulla.
For this reason, how these changes will be implemented in practice, what types of content will be restricted, how platforms will respond to government demands, and what role courts will play in this process are no less important than the laws themselves.
Because in the digital age, freedom of expression is measured not only by what people are able to write, but also by where those ideas can be shared, under what rules, and within whose legally defined boundaries.
The post The evolution of digital regulation in Azerbaijan: From website blocking to platform governance appeared first on MEYDAN.TV.
