The UK government is to restrict social media access  for under 16s, in a new law passed last week, committing to a tight timetable for the so-called ‘social media ban’ to come into force by July 2027. 

Access to children under the age of 16 will be subject to mandatory blocks on certain social media platforms, and there will be time-based restrictions  of some service features such as live video streaming and video calling. The  platforms that will have to comply have not yet been named. A question mark hangs like a Sword of Damocles over ISP services, including  VPNs, as to whether network-level restrictions are under consideration. The precise details of the restrictions will be decided following a consultation process that ends on 26 May.  However, it is clear that this is not a Australian-style law, rather it is  a more complex and potentially troubling one.

The  principle that the UK will restrict children’s social media to protect them from toxic and harmful content has  been enshrined in law  under the  Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act, passed by the UK Parliament last week. Importantly, it is not optional, and a mandatory obligation has been placed on the Secretary of State, who must implement it. If the July 2027 deadline is not met, the government will have to explain to Parliament.

It followed a tense Parliamentary battle between the House of Commons and House of Lords  that concluded last week on 29 April.  The Lords wanted an immediate restriction on children’s social media access, and controversial measures to prevent circumvention via virtual private networks [VPNs]. The government wanted to see through the consultation, and give itself some wriggle room on the exact nature of the restrictions.  Following a process that is officially known as “ping pong”, involving a series of complicated amendments, the argument between MPs and peers was finally settled when the government agreed to positively commit to implementing restrictions and speed up the timetable. 

Olivia Bailey, a junior Minister and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education,   told the House of Commons  that “we are clear that under any outcome we will impose some form of age or functionality for children under 16”  and “we are placing a clear statutory requirement that the Secretary of State "must", rather than "may", act following the consultation”.  [See Hansard, Monday 27 April] 

Her statement to the Commons would appear to  jump the gun on the consultation outcome. Legal experts at London law firm Bird and Bird have issued a reminder that the government has a duty to have regard to the Consultation. They warn that if the government fails in this duty, for example, by ignoring certain stakeholder groups, the implementing Regulations could be challenged in the courts. 

Olivia Bailey clarified that the government is “consulting on the mechanism”,  rather than the principle. The mandated mechanism to enforce the restrictions is age verification technology, which carries out passport or hard ID checks, but may also use biometrics and behavioural tracking, raising inherent security and privacy risks.

The  Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act  obtained Royal Assent on 29 April, and is now law. It grants sweeping powers to the Secretary of State to amend the Online Safety Act and UK GDPR for the purpose of restricting children’s social media access.  

Specifically, it amends S. 214 of the Online Safety Act with a new section 214A, which  empowers the Secretary of State to prevent or restrict children’s access to specified Internet services.  The use of the specific   terms prevent’  and ‘restrict’  seeks to differentiate between access completely  denied, or a  time-limited restriction.

The use of the term internet services rather than the term used in the Online Safety Act – user-to-user services - suggests the government could be thinking about a broader scope than the current law and raises the possibility of network-level restrictions. There was talk in the Lords of forcing virtual private networks to apply restrictions on children’s access [See Social media ban for kids: simple message, tough choices] This idea was dropped but it’s not clear whether the concept  could still be under consideration. 

The restrictions will be extended to specific functionalities and features such as live voice or video calls, unsolicited contacts from strangers, and time-limits on services, as are stated in the law. The government also wants to address  harmful and addictive design features.  Curfews are another idea that the government is exploring – it is unclear how this would work.

The changes to UK GDPR will amend the age of consent for digital services in Article 8,  which is currently 13, but would need to be raised to 16. It matters because online platforms may rely on children’s consent as the legal basis for collecting their data.

However, what should concern all stakeholders is  the over-ride of the democratic process .  The powers to make the  changes necessary to implement the restrictions on under 16s social media  are granted to the government under  so-called “Henry VIII” clauses. The measures will be brought in using Secondary Legislation, also known as Statutory Instruments, which can be passed into law without Parliamentary scrutiny. The government will hold the pen and the text cannot be amended by Parliament.  Some form of Parliamentary Committee oversight is promised but it will not be an amending role.

This is a very tight timeframe with a lot of  policy "unknowns".  For example,  how will the  age verification mandate impact on the privacy of children and other users? How should they be overseen and what kind of governance of these new systems will be put in place? These are simple questions with complex answers to be resolved by July 2027.

---

Thank you for visiting Iptegrity.com. I've been writing and researching in online content policy for 18 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. Please cite this article with my name, Dr Monica Horten, Iptegrity.com and provide a link back to this website.