The government has confirmed that a social media ban for under-16s is coming to the UK, but significant questions remain about which platforms will be included, how the rules will be enforced and whether the whole thing can realistically be in place by early next year.
Which gaming platforms will be covered?
The government has named Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X as platforms covered by the ban, and has said it will closely follow Australia’s approach, which also includes Kick, Reddit, Threads and Twitch. But that still leaves a major question mark over Roblox and similar gaming sites, which are enormously popular with children in the UK and have faced serious criticism over child safety failures, including allegations that adult predators were able to access children through the platform. Lorna Woods, professor of internet law at Essex University, told the BBC: “It is not yet clear how they will treat gaming sites. Though if they follow the Australian approach, these will lie outside the Australian ban.” However, regardless of whether Roblox falls within the ban’s scope, it will still be required to disable features that allow strangers to communicate with children — a restriction the government has made clear will apply to gaming services. Children will still be able to play multiplayer games online.
What happens to YouTube and educational content?
YouTube will be covered by the ban, but YouTube Kids will not. What remains unclear is how YouTube would prevent children from accessing content through search without an account, and how educational videos would be carved out under any exemption. YouTube itself has warned that including it in a ban risks driving children towards “anonymous, less safe services,” and Google has cited its own research suggesting 95 per cent of UK teenagers say watching online videos helps with schoolwork. The government says there will be “a narrowly defined list of exemptions” to keep educational services available to children, though the precise detail of how this would work has yet to be set out.
Why are WhatsApp and other platforms excluded?
WhatsApp, despite being used by half of all 8 to 17 year olds in the UK according to Ofcom, is not expected to be included in the ban. The government says its restrictions will cover platforms “whose purpose is to enable social interaction and which allow users to post material,” a definition it says will not extend to messaging apps such as WhatsApp and Signal. However, that definition could, in theory, apply to platforms such as Discord and Pinterest, neither of which appear on Australia’s banned list. Bluesky, Tumblr and Telegram are also absent from that list.
Can the ban be enforced, and what about VPNs?
The government says it will use “highly effective age assurance” to enforce the ban, including facial age estimation, photo ID matching and digital identity services such as Yoti. But the emergence of virtual private networks as a potential workaround is already drawing attention. Australia’s social media ban triggered a spike in VPN downloads among young people attempting to circumvent the restrictions, raising fears the same could happen here. Privacy experts caution that regulating VPNs would require collecting user data, undermining the privacy protection that makes them attractive. The government has not announced plans to regulate them, but Children’s Minister Josh MacAlister told the BBC there were “options there about whether we could age-gate VPN use, which would be really welcome.” Further detail on enforcement, including around VPN use, is expected in July.
Will it actually be in place by spring?
Tech Secretary Liz Kendall told MPs on Monday: “I want a vote on it by the end of the year, and I want it to come into force as early as possible in the first couple of months of 2027.” Unlike the Online Safety Act, which took years to pass through parliament, the government is using powers under the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act to introduce the ban as secondary legislation rather than a full Act of parliament, meaning it can move more quickly. However, legal challenges remain a risk. Giulia Carloni, senior associate at law firm Winston Taylor, warned: “Whilst primary legislation is effectively immune from challenge, secondary legislation is subject to review by the courts as it lacks the rigorous multi-stage scrutiny required for statutes.” If tech companies mount a legal challenge through judicial review, the timeline could slip considerably.
