header-logo header-logo

11 December 2025
Categories: Legal News , Social Media , Technology , Child law , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

Could UK children ever be blocked from social media?

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll