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

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll