UK bans social media for under-16s as pressure builds on tech companies

The government has today [15 June] set out plans for an under-16s social media ban. But, as sector responses emerge, attention is quickly turning to a key question: where are the tech companies?

The Prime Minister announced the proposed legislation during a Downing Street address this morning. The aim is to prevent children under 16 from accessing major platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, YouTube and X.

The move has been widely welcomed as a step towards improving online safety. However, there is growing consensus across education, safeguarding and legal sectors that restricting access alone will not be enough without meaningful change from platform providers.

A “reset” for children’s digital lives

The Prime Minister described the current online environment as increasingly harmful for children. He argued that stronger intervention is needed to protect their safety and happiness.

The proposed ban forms part of what has been described as a “world‑leading” approach to online safety. The UK claims it is set to go further than many other countries in restricting youth access to social platforms.

Alongside the ban, additional protections are expected to include:

• restrictions on livestreaming and contact with strangers
• greater oversight of interactive and gaming platforms
• consideration of measures such as usage curfews and limits on addictive features, including infinite scrolling

The government says some safeguards will also apply by default to older teenagers. It says this is an effort to ensure a more gradual transition into social media use.

The Prime Minister framed the proposals as a decisive step towards “giving children their childhoods back”. He highlighted concerns around online harm, addictive design and the pressures of constant connectivity.

Sector response: support, with a clear message

Across the sector, a consistent theme is emerging: responsibility cannot rest solely with government policy or schools.

Education leaders have broadly welcomed the intent behind the proposals, while emphasising that meaningful change must go further.

Paul Whiteman, general secretary of school leaders’ union NAHT, said:

“School leaders – like parents – see the need for action, including age restrictions on social media. However, it is clear a ban alone will not be a panacea to all the risks posed by social media and the online world, and it will need to be supported by a much wider package of measures, so we welcome the commitment by government to take action on gaming services and live streaming platforms too.

“There must be a resolute focus on ensuring that social media companies and online providers are not absolved from taking responsibility to make their platforms safe for children and young people, alongside increased government monitoring and regulation to ensure they do so.

“Any move to raise the minimum age for social media use to 16 will need to be supported by truly effective age verification measures. Even the current minimum age of 13 is difficult to enforce, so if the threshold is raised this could prove harder still.

“Focusing on a social media ban at the expense of broader action to ensure technology companies get their houses in order, would risk letting them off the hook.”

The National Education Union (NEU) struck a similar tone, warning that tech companies must be central to any solution.

Polling from the union’s ‘Big Tech’s Little Victims’ campaign suggests more than half of UK adults would view the government more favourably if a full ban is implemented. 42 per cent believe it would contribute to a positive legacy for the Prime Minister.

NEU general secretary, Daniel Kebede, said:

“Anything less than a full ban would show that government is caving in to Big Tech—prioritising the interests and profits of social media companies over children’s wellbeing and the concerns of parents and teachers.”

Child protection charity Children First also pointed to the need for systemic change, warning that the problem goes beyond access:

Mary Glasgow, chief executive of Children First, said:

“The UK Government’s move to restrict social media for under 16s and tackle live streaming and stranger contact is a welcome indication of the desire to protect children in the face of a national childhood emergency.

“Given children are likely to find ways around a ban, they will continue to be harmed unless tech companies are forced to implement changes to ensure their products are safe from the start.

“Bans on social media and smartphones in schools can begin to shift cultural norms, but they will not fix a system designed to maximise profit and ignore protection.

“Parents and caregivers need support to model a new approach to screens, and above all tech companies need to ensure safety by design and urgently develop platforms that are not addictive for anyone.”

Equally, the NSPCC has long campaigned to see urgent and serious change to keep children safe online. It said:

“Tech companies have failed our young people for far too long and there needs to be real accountability for the dangers on their platforms. Australia has shown that bans alone don’t keep children safe as some young people will slip through the net. To deliver on their ambition, the Government must ensure that there are robust age checks on platforms, effective enforcement, and stronger action to tackle addictive features. 

“Under current plans, the Government have said they will ban just two harmful features for children online – stranger messaging and livestreaming. We know more harmful features exist and so there is more work to be done. We can’t let children in the UK pay the price for failing to close these gaps. 

“You’ve already shown the difference we can make when we stand together. Will you help us keep up the pressure to build a safer online world for children?”

Mark Russell, CEO at The Children’s Society said:

“Parents are right to be worried about what children are seeing online, and we welcome the government taking children’s safety seriously. A ban may send a powerful signal, but signals aren’t safety.

“We cannot let tech companies off the hook for the platforms they’ve built. A ban focuses on access, but the real challenge is tackling the addictive design and harmful content driving so much of the harm.

“The priority must be making online spaces safer for children, while investing in the youth services, trusted adults and community support that help young people thrive.”

Beyond access: tackling why young people turn to social media

Trevor Elliott MBE is one of the UK’s youngest foster carers and founder of Kennedy Elliott and Children We Care For. He highlighted the importance of addressing the underlying reasons young people rely on digital spaces.

“Stronger action to protect children online is needed, but removing access alone will not address the reasons many young people rely on these platforms. For children experiencing instability, loneliness or challenges at home, online spaces can provide a sense of connection and belonging.

“Any ban must be supported by digital education, accessible offline opportunities and trusted adults who have the time and resources to support young people. Without that, there is a risk that some children could be pushed towards less visible or less regulated online spaces.

“It is also vital that vulnerable and care-experienced children are considered as these policies are implemented, and that young people are equipped with the skills to recognise manipulation, exploitation and harmful content.”

His comments reinforce a wider concern: without alternative support and opportunities, restrictions alone could displace rather than solve the issue.

Practical challenges for schools

Legal experts have also raised concerns about how the policy will work in practice, particularly as enforcement remains a key gap.

Dai Durbridge, partner specialising in safeguarding at Browne Jacobson, said:

“Banning social media for under-16s may feel like the path of least resistance for the government but it will likely create challenges for schools.

“We have already seen how readily young people can bypass restrictions using VPNs, older siblings’ accounts and fake images… It therefore appears to be a lack of enforcement, rather than lack of suitable legislation, that has meant children have not been protected.”

Durbridge added that schools will face immediate safeguarding questions, particularly when pupils access platforms outside school:

“It will involve understanding what the expectation looks like when a pupil is accessing banned platforms at home, and how pastoral and safeguarding staff respond when they become aware that children are using platforms they are legally prohibited from accessing.”

Investment in enrichment beyond the classroom

In a separate but closely linked announcement, the government has also unveiled a major programme aimed at expanding children’s access to enrichment opportunities.

The £132.5 million ‘Every Child Can’ initiative aims to support activities both in and out of school. It includes community programmes, weekend provision and holiday clubs.

The goal is to ensure all young people, regardless of background, can develop skills, confidence and social connections across areas including:

• sport and physical activity
• arts and culture
• nature and outdoor learning
• civic engagement
• life skills and STEM

Tackling isolation and replacing screen time

While announced separately, the two policies are closely aligned.

Despite being the most digitally connected generation, many young people are experiencing high levels of isolation. They are increasingly calling for safe spaces, trusted adults and opportunities to connect offline.

The enrichment programme aims to halve the participation gap by removing barriers linked to cost and location.

A joined-up approach, or an incomplete one?

Taken together, the proposals signal a broader shift in government policy, moving beyond restricting online access to creating offline opportunities.

Yet across the sector, the message is clear: without stronger action from technology companies, the policy risks falling short.

As the debate develops, the focus is no longer just on whether children should have access to social media, but whether the platforms themselves are designed in a way that is safe for them to use.

Looking ahead

Legislation is expected later this year, with a potential rollout by 2027, subject to parliamentary approval.

Further details on implementation and funding are expected in the coming months. But for many across the sector, the key question remains unchanged: will tech companies meet this moment, or continue to remain largely absent from the conversation?