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

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll