Government Confirms UK Internet Social Media BAN for Children Under 16 UPDATE2

The Prime Minister of the UK Government, Sir Keir Starmer, has today confirmed that they will introduce an internet Social Media Ban for children under the age of 16 against ten popular platforms (TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, YouTube, Reddit, Twitch, X, Threads, Facebook and Kick). But that’s not the only restriction they’ll be introducing.

Just to recap. The recently passed Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 (CWSA) had effectively already handed the government the legal powers to introduce new mass Social Media censorship measures, although the exact approach was due to be decided by a consultation (here).

According to the Government, some 9 in 10 parents who responded to the Growing Up in an Online World parents’ consultation back a minimum age of 16 before platforms can offer their services to children. Parents also made clear they want restrictions on certain features children use every day – from stranger contact to explicit image sharing. Finally, three quarters said families would face fewer disagreements if social media was restricted.

Young people were also found to echo these concerns – some 62% who responded to the consultation said restricting the high-risk features would make them safer online. They also raised concerns about addictive design with 52% saying they wanted infinite scrolling restricted. However, children and young people are clear-eyed about the challenges too, with 72% being worried about feeling left out if restrictions came in.

The government’s decision

In response to the above, and wider political pressures, the Government has confirmed that they now intend to “go further” than the Australian model, which also recently banned social media access for under 16s.

Key Changes – UK Social Media Ban

➤ Under-16s to be banned from using ten popular platforms (i.e. existing accounts to be suspended and no new accounts allowed) – TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, YouTube, Reddit, Twitch, X, Threads, Facebook and Kick.

➤ The government said they would be looking in more detail at overnight social media curfews and breaks in infinite scrolling for under-18-year-olds – they will set out more detail in July 2026.

➤ Restrictions on access and use of AI chatbots are to be introduced. So-called AI ‘romantic companion’ chatbots – designed to simulate sexual relationships or roleplay with users – will, for example, have to enforce a minimum age of 18. Similar intimate functionalities will be restricted for under-18s on AI chatbots more widely.

➤ Children will be stopped from being able to livestream and from chatting with strangers using online gaming apps – “these restrictions – which together with the ban go further than any other country – will apply to a wider range of online services, including on gaming sites.”

➤ Restrictions on these functionalities will also be on by default for under 16- and 17-year-olds to prevent a cliff-edge at 16.

➤ Messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal are NOT intended to be included in the social media ban.

➤ The Gov said they will “learn the lessons from Australia’s experience” by introducing more highly effective age assurance (HEAA) measures to support compliance, making it far harder for children to bypass safeguards. Ofcom will first need to conduct a rapid study on what is HEAA for verifying whether someone is over 16 (doing this in an accurate, privacy conscious and practical way remains extremely difficult).

➤ Ofcom will also be tasked with conducting an urgent review of its enforcement capabilities with a clear strategy to be published as soon as possible. The government said they would ensure Ofcom has the funding it needs to carry out its new responsibilities – as well as continue its work to enforce the existing provisions of the OSA.

However, it’s worth noting that this change will also inhibit children from being able to fully engage with other young people across the country, and indeed the world, in order to raise awareness about issues they care about, either in terms of education, politics or on more sensitive subjects. For example, the likes Greta Thunberg or Malala Yousafzai may have found it much harder to get their views heard with a social media ban in the way. Not to mention that it treats 14-16 year olds with the same brush as much younger children, which some may find insulting.

The Australian attempt to introduce a similar ban also showed how difficult it is to do, with children frequently finding ways around the restrictions so they can stay engaged with their friends and family. According to the Molly Rose Foundation, some 61% of Australian 12-15 year-olds who had accounts on restricted platforms before the ban came into force still have access to one or more of them.

The government recognises the problem, albeit somewhat without properly considering the reason why children might wish to circumvent it.

Sir Keir Starmer, Prime Minister, said:

“Parents want to keep their kids safe and happy, but the online world has made that harder than ever.

I’ve heard first hand from families crying out for change and we will do right by them.

That’s why we’re going further than any country in the world by banning social media for under-16s and putting wider protections in place to give kids their childhood back.

This is a line in the sand. Tech giants had their chance and failed, but we’re stepping in to protect children, back parents and set a new normal for future generations.”

An Ofcom spokesperson said:

“So far, Ofcom has driven some of the strongest changes of any online safety regulation in the world, from widespread age checks to grooming protections for children. But the industry needs to go much further to make people safe. The Government has entrusted us to build on this progress with new measures to protect children, and we’re ready to work closely with them as the detailed regulations take shape.”

Announcing the new measures is one thing, but actually introducing them is going to be extremely difficult, particularly given the diversity and complexity of the internet (i.e. there are many ways to get around Age Verification measures). Not to mention the risk of pushing younger users into underground groups and services, away from the big social media platforms.

Restricting access to common online services will also inhibit their use by adults and could thus risk significant unintended consequences, particularly if restrictive rules are later applied to website and online services of all sizes with user-to-user platforms (e.g. smaller sites / forums and services often have no viable way of adding Age Verification). The result could be censorship by the backdoor of excessive legal liability.

At the same time many adults may be uncomfortable with being blocked from accessing communication / chat services until such time as they agree to share their personal biometric or financial data with often unknown, unfamiliar and unregulated third-party Age Verification organisations. Some of this has already occurred under the existing Online Safety Act (OSA).

James Baker, Freedom of Expression Programme Manager (Open Rights Group), said:

“Every failed attempt to make children safer online is followed by more surveillance and censorship.

Children have rights too and these policies will harm their free expression and privacy rights, and push them into less regulated spaces.

Meanwhile the business models driving harms are untouched.”

Today’s action also builds on the government’s work to date. Last week, the Prime Minister said Britain will be the first country in the world to make it “impossible for children to take, share or view nude images” – with a 3-month deadline to make meaningful progress. But not everybody will like the idea of the Government having such control over individual devices (Smartphones etc.). As usual, the focus is on children, but it may also impact adults.

The reality is that, whatever the government introduces, children who go seeking access to such systems and content will always find a way to circumvent any measures that are introduced – just as they always have done. Instead, it often ends up being the innocent and harmless online services, games and security systems that could be hurt the most by a sledgehammer approach to age-gated internet censorship.

The government appear to be trying to balance some of these concerns by directly focusing most of their efforts on the largest social media platforms. But it remains to be seen how workable all these changes are and how many smaller online sites and services it could actually end up catching.

The first set of regulations are intended to be brought into effect in Spring 2027.

UPDATE 10am

We’ve had a few comments come in.

Professor David Ellis, Chair of Behavioural Science at the University of Bath, said:

“This ban is based on worry, not evidence. The evidence base as it stands suggests social media has a minuscule effect, if any, on teenagers – particularly once you account for the other factors we know shape childhood development.

It’s also unlikely to be straightforward to enforce, given what we’ve seen elsewhere, and it risks pushing teenagers towards less regulated parts of the internet. Worse, it lets social media companies off the hook: they can divert resources away from making platforms safer, despite the fact that many young people will simply remain on them.

This is what happens when politics is put before evidence-based policy. Rather than tackling the difficult question, you end up in a worse position than when you started.”

Statement from the Royal Society for Blind Children (RSBC):

“For some of the blind and partially sighted young people we work with at RSBC, social media has been their lifeline; their way to connect with others, express themselves, and feel less alone. But online spaces are not always designed with children’s safety, privacy or accessibility in mind. RSBC supports better age appropriate protections and action against the various platforms that are exposing children to harm.

However we are mindful that this ban risks cutting off vital routes to connection for children who are already too often excluded. We are actively looking at ways to counter the impact this could have, by boosting and promoting some of our RSBC online clubs and groups as a way to maintain those connections safely, inclusively and accessibly.”

UPDATE 12:09pm

Dr Christopher Snowdon, Institute of Economic Affairs, said:

“We must stop judging new legislation by the good intentions of its advocates rather than its likely consequences. We know from Australia that most teenagers will get around the ban and that those who are not able to do so will suffer from social isolation.

There are legitimate concerns about screen addiction among both children and adults, but parents are already able to restrict what their children see online and limit the number of hours they can use a smartphone. These guardrails are removed when kids log in via VPNs or sign up to platforms as adults.

What the government is trying to do is reminiscent of attempts to ban the printing press. It is similarly impractical, illiberal and ultimately undesirable.”