header-logo header-logo

Could UK children ever be blocked from social media?

11 December 2025
Categories: Legal News , Social Media , Technology , Child law , Regulatory
printer mail-detail
Australia’s under-16 social media ban is ‘a blunt tool that won’t drive the change we all want’, according to a UK legal expert in online safety

TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook and other platforms were legally obliged to deny access to children in Australia this week or face fines of up to A$49.5m (£24.65m). The ban aims to protect under-16s from mental ill-health, distorted body image, misleading information and the myriad other harms caused by spending too much time on their phones.

While tech companies oppose the ban, and the practicalities of implementing and enforcing the ban remain uncertain, governments around the world will be closely watching how the experiment pans out. In the UK, under-16s are protected online mainly by the Online Safety Act 2023, enforced by Ofcom, which requires tech companies to protect children and teenagers from pornography and other harmful content and proactively take down any illegal content. But could the UK government follow Australia’s example?

Mark Jones, partner at Payne Hicks Beach, who specialises in the legalities of online safety, described Australia’s move as ‘a bold swing at a complex problem’ but warned ‘it risks becoming the digital equivalent of locking the front door while leaving every window wide open.

‘The whole scheme hinges on age verification systems that are notoriously unreliable—able to read the same teenager as 14 or 43 depending on the angle, and apparently no match for a Beyoncé filter. Once you ban something, you invite workarounds: VPNs, alternate accounts, and whatever creative loopholes young people invent next.

‘More importantly, a ban sidesteps the deeper issue of dangerous content and lax platform accountability. If we simply exile under-16s from mainstream platforms without fixing the ecosystem, we’re not creating safety; we’re simply delaying exposure until their 16th birthday.

‘In a world where kids learn, socialise, and play online, this blunt tool may look decisive, but it’s unlikely to deliver the safer internet we all actually want.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll