Industry Reaction, Risks & What It Means for Business

Ministers have set the UK on course to bar under-16s from mainstream social media, but the business and technology figures who will have to live with the policy are far from convinced it will work.

The government confirmed on Monday that platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, Facebook and X will be required to keep under-16s off their services, with messaging apps such as WhatsApp and the standalone YouTube Kids carved out. The measures, which follow the path already taken by Australia, are expected to come into force by spring 2027, and platforms that fail to take reasonable steps to exclude younger users face fines running into millions of pounds. Nine in ten parents who responded to the official consultation backed a ban.

It is, by any measure, one of the boldest interventions yet in the relationship between children, business and the internet. It is also one of the most contested. The reaction from across the regulatory, fact-checking and age-assurance worlds ranged from outright opposition to heavily qualified support, with a common thread: age limits alone will not fix online harm, and may create fresh problems of their own.

‘Reminiscent of attempts to ban the printing press’

The sharpest criticism came from the free-market Institute of Economic Affairs. Dr Christopher Snowdon, the think tank’s head of lifestyle economics, warned against judging legislation by the good intentions of its champions 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,” he said. “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.”

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

‘No silver bullet’

Leanne Proctor, regulatory lead at the Online Responsibility Network, struck a more conciliatory note but reached a similar conclusion, cautioning that the policy “risks letting down the very families it seeks to protect”.

“We understand why so many parents welcome this policy, and we share their concern for children’s safety online,” she said. “The UK would do well to reflect carefully on the experiences of Australia, who identified significant challenges with this approach. Evidence from social media restrictions around the world suggests that age limits alone are unlikely to be a silver bullet in protecting children from online harms, and parents deserve a solution that truly delivers.”

For Proctor, the answer lies in shared responsibility rather than a blanket cut-off. “Every brand and platform has a responsibility in making the internet safer. Our research found the majority of Gen Z firmly believe the responsibility lies with platforms themselves to improve online safety.” The route forward, she argued, is a “multi-stakeholder” model in which platforms deploy effective content monitoring and controls while being regulated quickly and effectively under the Online Safety Act.

A clenched fist, but parents wanted tough measures

Not everyone in the age-assurance industry was hostile. Andy Lulham, chief operating officer at age-verification provider Verifymy, described the announcement as “the government finally showing its hand on social media, and it’s a clenched fist”.

A ban for under-16s, demands that platforms close existing accounts, and restrictions reaching into chatbots and gaming platforms amounted to an approach he called “both bold and blunt”. Yet he acknowledged the political reality. “Parents clearly want tough measures; nine in ten who responded to the official consultation backed a ban, with the UK now joining Australia and a growing number of other countries heading in the same direction.”

Lulham argued the technology is now mature enough to do the job. “While not the approach I would have recommended, lessons will have been learnt from Australia and age-check technology is ready to enforce the new legislation,” he said, pointing to the work platforms have already done keeping children off adult websites since age-assurance duties took effect last July. But he warned that hardware and software alone would fall short: “To reduce harm, the ban needs to be backed by real accountability for platforms, proper support for parents, and education that prepares young people for the online world they’ll eventually rejoin.”

‘A free pass for social media companies’

The most fundamental objection came from the fact-checking charity Full Fact, which framed the ban as a retreat rather than a step forward. Mark Frankel, its head of public affairs, called the announcement “neither bold nor decisive” and “a de facto surrender in the fight against harmful online misinformation”.

Rather than locking under-16s out, Frankel said, ministers should be applying far greater regulatory pressure on technology companies to dismantle addictive design features and placing a statutory duty on them to help users tell fact from fiction. He also flagged an awkward contradiction at the heart of the government’s wider agenda: “If the government is serious about extending participation in our democratic process to 16 and 17-year-olds, restricting their access to these platforms is unlikely to help them become better informed.”

His closing charge was that the policy lets the platforms off the hook entirely. “It’s not the technology itself that is harmful, but the way it’s designed and marketed to all users of these platforms. Far from protecting young people from online harms, this ban fails to address current weaknesses in online safety legislation and gives social media companies a free pass.”

What it means for business

For platform operators, brands and the fast-growing age-assurance sector, the direction of travel is now clear even if the detail is not. Further measures, including possible overnight curfews and limits on infinite scrolling for under-18s, are expected to be set out in July, and the practical burden of compliance will land on businesses, not Whitehall.

The government’s own Online Safety Act explainer and the House of Commons Library briefing on proposals to ban social media for children set out the legislative backdrop against which firms will have to plan. What this week’s reaction makes plain is that even the companies building the tools to enforce the ban doubt it can succeed on its own. The consensus emerging from the industry is that age limits are the easy part; meaningful accountability, parental support and digital education are the hard, unglamorous work that will actually determine whether children are any safer.

Jamie Young

Jamie is Senior Reporter at Business Matters, bringing over a decade of experience in UK SME business reporting.
Jamie holds a degree in Business Administration and regularly participates in industry conferences and workshops.

When not reporting on the latest business developments, Jamie is passionate about mentoring up-and-coming journalists and entrepreneurs to inspire the next generation of business leaders.