Why has the government committed to social media ban without knowing the regulatory costs? A  message for the new government, whoever leads it. 

Last week it was confirmed that the UK government will legislate for a social media ban by December.  The aims of the ban are laudable, and difficult to disagree with, but that should not mean that the government can proceed without ensuring the budget is there to cover costs. Rather the opposite, because we've seen several times how the Starmer government failed to take the right steps and landed  in hot water. In this case,  funding for the regulatory work has been committed before a business plan with proper costings has been produced.  We hear every day about the dire state of UK government finances, our inability as a country to fund the UK’s defence needs and welfare bills, so omissions like this do matter. 

This article explained the position. It was written on the day that the former Prime Minister Keir Starmer, resigned,  pending the appointment of his successor. 

Beneath the fanfare, little if anything was said  about financial support for Ofcom’s role as enforcer of the ban. There were 116,000 responses to the government's consultation, reflecting  mounting pressure from parents to implement “at pace”. Yet there is no firm specification or priorities, and nor is there a costed funding commitment to cover the necessary regulatory work.   

The government's announcement essentially put some political spin  around the framework that was set out in law on 29 April [Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 S.70-72]. There will be a blanket age-based  restriction on children under 16 accessing social media in the UK. Additional restrictions will be put on certain specified features such as live video. [See my previous article about this framework:  UK to have children's social media ban by summer 2027 .]

The implementation timetable was tightened. The deadline for legislation was brought forward by six months to December 2026, along with an ambition for the age restrictions to begin in Spring 2027. Given the anticipated complexity of the new statutory requirements, and the introduction of still evolving age-checking technology at scale, this is an extremely ambitious schedule. A social media ban is a great PR line that overlooks the technical complexities in implementation: see my previous article Social media ban for kids: simple message, tough choices

All of this will create a new suite of oversight duties for the regulator, Ofcom, who  will play a  key role in overseeing the necessary age-checks. Ofcom has complained that it will be  the “additional burden” which it will have to enforce on top of existing duties under the Online Safety Act.

Ofcom is asking for extra money to cover the extra workload. This may well be a fair request. It will  be subject to negotiation with the Secretary of State for Department of Science, Innovation and Technology [DSIT], but what’s curious  - especially in the straightened circumstances of the UK government finances  - is that the government has committed to paying  without knowing the cost.

The government’s commitment is signalled in correspondence  from the Secretary of State who says “the government will ensure Ofcom has the funding it needs”.  

It  appears that the regulator does not have any further information at this stage. In its response, Ofcom says it is waiting for more detail from DSIT so that it can draw up a business case, implying that the budget has not been set and costs have not been calculated. Therefore this would be an unfunded cost. It raises questions that should be asked about where the government will find the money and why it is committing without a confirmed figure?

A business case would normally provide detailed costings, usually backed up in a spreadsheet and  accompanied by  the objectives and outcomes, key performance indicators, as well as workstreams and resource requirements. Anyone who has ever been involved in  business case development would know how complex and contentious it can be [for the record, I have been].   

The announcement was issued in a hurry in an attempt to prop up the government’s position and stave off recent criticisms about its inability  to act decisively.  So perhaps it is not surprising that it lacks detail.  Ofcom rightly wants to know the government’s priorities and  specific requirements in order to develop the business case. Concerns include conflicting age gates for under 16s in the new law, and under 18s in the Online Safety Act; and how DSIT envisages new measures on chatbots, that were also part of the 15 June announcement,  to function.  

The government will have to provide detail in the Regulations that it will set before Parliament by December. However, Ofcom needs to know the detail much more imminently, because its business plan will feed into the government's preparations. .

Ofcom is also asked to work closely with the Information Commissioner’s Office [ICO]  to “ensure synergy with data protection legislation”  but it is not clear whether the ICO will also get additional funding – perhaps it will have to wait a while in light of the sudden resignation of the Information Commissioner John Edwards.   

A key issue that has been highlighted by many experts, including top lawyers, is the volume of data processing by any of the available methods of age assurance, along with the associated privacy and security issues. It comes  with the reminder that everyone who uses social media, including adults, will have to verify their age, whether by passport or facial scan.  It's full of technical complexity and will not  be easy under any circumstances. 

Of course, the anticipated arrival of a new Prime Minister may result in a change of funding priorities, and  uncertainty may prevail for a while until the higher level politics settles down. Reverting to the Statutory timetable could be a good option. But whoever leads it should follow due process - surely that is least we can ask as citizens.  

---

If you want to use  information from this article,  I ask for a citation:  Dr Monica Horten, Iptegrity.com with a link back to this web page.

I've been writing and researching in online content policy for almost 20 years.  If you have any questions or  feedback, please get in touch. If you like my work please feel free to browse this website or buy my books.

Iptegrity.com is provided free of charge.  Thank you for visiting.