Governments across several continents are moving to restrict children's access to social media, marking a significant shift in how policymakers view the responsibilities of technology companies. For years, most major platforms relied on a minimum sign-up age of 13, while parents were expected to supervise younger users. That approach is increasingly being challenged as governments respond to concerns about harmful content, cyberbullying, excessive screen use, addictive platform features and possible effects on children's mental health and development.
Australia has become the most important test case after introducing a minimum age of 16 for accounts on many major social media platforms in December 2025. The law places responsibility on platforms rather than children or their parents, requiring companies to take reasonable steps to prevent under-16 users from maintaining accounts. Early evidence shows that account ownership among Australian under-16s declined after the rules took effect, although many young people have continued to use social media, exposing the practical limitations of age restrictions.
The Australian experiment is now influencing policy discussions elsewhere. New Zealand announced on August 24, 2026, that it plans to introduce legislation restricting social media access for children under 16, while the United Kingdom has announced its own under-16 restrictions. Malaysia has also moved toward preventing under-16s from registering social media accounts. Across Europe, governments are considering different combinations of minimum ages, parental consent and platform safety requirements.
The common factor is not simply concern about how much time children spend online. Governments are increasingly questioning whether the commercial design of social media platforms is compatible with the needs of young users and whether voluntary safeguards have done enough to protect them.
Governments Are Moving Responsibility From Parents to Platforms
The most important change in the emerging regulatory approach is the transfer of responsibility from families to technology companies. Under traditional arrangements, platforms generally set their own minimum age requirements and relied heavily on users providing accurate information. Governments are now arguing that this system is inadequate because a child can often enter an incorrect birth date and gain access with little difficulty.
Australia's framework illustrates the new model. Since December 2025, designated platforms have been required to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under 16 from creating or keeping accounts. Children themselves are not penalised, while the companies can face substantial financial penalties for failing to comply. The system also excludes several services whose primary purposes are messaging, education, health support or online gaming, demonstrating that the policy is aimed specifically at the risks associated with social media rather than the internet as a whole.
New Zealand's proposal follows a similar principle but would potentially impose much larger penalties, reaching as much as 10 percent of a platform's global revenue. The proposal also considers different forms of age verification, including digital identification and facial age estimation. The fact that governments are discussing technical enforcement mechanisms alongside age limits shows that the issue has moved beyond a simple question of whether children should use social media. It has become a question of whether platforms can be legally required to prove that they are controlling access.
The United Kingdom is also moving toward an under-16 restriction while considering additional protections against harmful platform features and unwanted contact between children and strangers. This broader approach is significant because it recognises that age alone may not address the risks associated with social media. Governments are increasingly looking at the design of digital services as part of the child-safety problem.
Australia’s Experience Shows the Limits of a Ban
Australia's experience demonstrates why simply establishing a legal age threshold does not automatically remove children from social media. The country's internet safety regulator reported that the proportion of under-16s holding social media accounts fell from 52.4 percent to 42.1 percent during the first three months of the restrictions. The proportion reporting that they used social media either with or without an account also declined, but remained above 80 percent. These figures suggest that the law changed behaviour without eliminating children's exposure to social media.
The more significant problem is enforcement. Australia's early evaluation found that many young people who already had accounts were able either to retain them or create new ones. Weak age-assurance systems were identified as a major reason. This is important for other governments because it shows that legislation can place an obligation on platforms, but the effectiveness of that obligation depends heavily on whether companies have reliable methods of determining a user's age.
The experience also shows why governments are unlikely to treat the Australian model as a finished solution. The Australian authorities are conducting a longer-term evaluation involving thousands of children and families. That process is intended to assess not only whether account numbers fall, but also how the restrictions affect young people's experiences, family relationships and perceptions of social media. Early findings indicated that some children felt less pressure to participate online after the restrictions began.
The challenge is that children can still encounter online material without holding a social media account, and they can move toward services that fall outside a particular legal definition. Australia's own rules demonstrate this complexity by excluding services such as WhatsApp, Messenger, online gaming platforms and educational services from the main restrictions. As technology changes, governments will have to determine whether new services are effectively social networks even when they are not marketed as such.
Europe Is Testing Different Models of Protection
European countries are approaching the issue less uniformly, reflecting different legal traditions and political priorities. Denmark has proposed restrictions for children under 15, while Norway has considered raising its minimum age and establishing a stronger statutory limit. France has pursued legislation restricting access for younger teenagers, while Germany relies more heavily on parental consent for some users. Spain, Sweden, Poland and Slovenia have also considered tighter age requirements or legislation aimed at strengthening platform responsibility.
The European debate is particularly complicated because age restrictions intersect with freedom of expression and privacy rights. France's experience illustrates the difficulty: a proposed under-15 social media restriction faced judicial scrutiny over its effect on fundamental rights. This means that governments cannot assume that a policy that appears effective from a child-protection perspective will automatically survive legal examination.
The European Union is considering a broader approach that goes beyond simply preventing children from opening accounts. Policymakers have increasingly focused on addictive or harmful design practices, including features that encourage prolonged engagement. This distinction could become important because a platform can potentially create risks for young users through recommendation systems and interface design even when those users meet the minimum legal age.
Other governments are adopting different combinations of restrictions. Italy requires parental consent for younger children, while Greece, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates have pursued or considered minimum-age measures. India has also seen calls for stronger age restrictions, reflecting growing concern about the way platforms attract and retain young users. These approaches indicate that governments agree increasingly on the need for intervention, even though they disagree about whether the answer should be a complete age restriction, parental approval or stricter regulation of platform behaviour.
Age Verification Could Become the Next Regulatory Battleground
The spread of minimum-age laws is creating a second major policy problem: how governments and technology companies can verify age without collecting excessive amounts of personal information. A system based on government identification may provide stronger assurance but raises privacy concerns. Facial age estimation may reduce the need to submit documents but can raise questions about accuracy and the handling of biometric information. Any large-scale verification system therefore has to balance child protection against privacy and data-security risks.
The issue is becoming more complicated because children can use multiple devices and accounts and can move between services. A system that works on one major platform may be ineffective if a young user can simply move to another service with weaker controls. This creates an incentive for governments to develop common standards rather than leaving every company to create its own approach.
The United States is taking a different path, with federal lawmakers considering stronger duties for platforms to protect minors while existing child privacy laws and state-level restrictions remain in place. The European Union is examining platform design, while China has pursued a more comprehensive system involving device-level and application-level restrictions for minors. These approaches suggest that the international debate is moving toward a broader question of how digital environments should be designed for children.
The emerging global pattern is therefore not a simple worldwide social media ban. Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, China, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, India, Italy, Malaysia, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United States and the European Union are pursuing different combinations of age limits, parental controls, platform duties, design restrictions and verification requirements. What connects them is a growing belief that the existing system, in which children could largely access social media by declaring themselves old enough, is no longer considered sufficient by many governments.
The effectiveness of this new regulatory wave will ultimately depend less on the number written into legislation than on enforcement, technology, privacy safeguards and the ability to address harmful platform design. Australia's early experience provides evidence that age restrictions can reduce account ownership, but it also shows that access is difficult to eliminate completely. As more governments adopt their own models, the central policy challenge will be finding a workable balance between protecting children from genuine online risks and preserving their legitimate access to communication, information and digital communities.
(Source:www.reuters.com)
Australia has become the most important test case after introducing a minimum age of 16 for accounts on many major social media platforms in December 2025. The law places responsibility on platforms rather than children or their parents, requiring companies to take reasonable steps to prevent under-16 users from maintaining accounts. Early evidence shows that account ownership among Australian under-16s declined after the rules took effect, although many young people have continued to use social media, exposing the practical limitations of age restrictions.
The Australian experiment is now influencing policy discussions elsewhere. New Zealand announced on August 24, 2026, that it plans to introduce legislation restricting social media access for children under 16, while the United Kingdom has announced its own under-16 restrictions. Malaysia has also moved toward preventing under-16s from registering social media accounts. Across Europe, governments are considering different combinations of minimum ages, parental consent and platform safety requirements.
The common factor is not simply concern about how much time children spend online. Governments are increasingly questioning whether the commercial design of social media platforms is compatible with the needs of young users and whether voluntary safeguards have done enough to protect them.
Governments Are Moving Responsibility From Parents to Platforms
The most important change in the emerging regulatory approach is the transfer of responsibility from families to technology companies. Under traditional arrangements, platforms generally set their own minimum age requirements and relied heavily on users providing accurate information. Governments are now arguing that this system is inadequate because a child can often enter an incorrect birth date and gain access with little difficulty.
Australia's framework illustrates the new model. Since December 2025, designated platforms have been required to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under 16 from creating or keeping accounts. Children themselves are not penalised, while the companies can face substantial financial penalties for failing to comply. The system also excludes several services whose primary purposes are messaging, education, health support or online gaming, demonstrating that the policy is aimed specifically at the risks associated with social media rather than the internet as a whole.
New Zealand's proposal follows a similar principle but would potentially impose much larger penalties, reaching as much as 10 percent of a platform's global revenue. The proposal also considers different forms of age verification, including digital identification and facial age estimation. The fact that governments are discussing technical enforcement mechanisms alongside age limits shows that the issue has moved beyond a simple question of whether children should use social media. It has become a question of whether platforms can be legally required to prove that they are controlling access.
The United Kingdom is also moving toward an under-16 restriction while considering additional protections against harmful platform features and unwanted contact between children and strangers. This broader approach is significant because it recognises that age alone may not address the risks associated with social media. Governments are increasingly looking at the design of digital services as part of the child-safety problem.
Australia’s Experience Shows the Limits of a Ban
Australia's experience demonstrates why simply establishing a legal age threshold does not automatically remove children from social media. The country's internet safety regulator reported that the proportion of under-16s holding social media accounts fell from 52.4 percent to 42.1 percent during the first three months of the restrictions. The proportion reporting that they used social media either with or without an account also declined, but remained above 80 percent. These figures suggest that the law changed behaviour without eliminating children's exposure to social media.
The more significant problem is enforcement. Australia's early evaluation found that many young people who already had accounts were able either to retain them or create new ones. Weak age-assurance systems were identified as a major reason. This is important for other governments because it shows that legislation can place an obligation on platforms, but the effectiveness of that obligation depends heavily on whether companies have reliable methods of determining a user's age.
The experience also shows why governments are unlikely to treat the Australian model as a finished solution. The Australian authorities are conducting a longer-term evaluation involving thousands of children and families. That process is intended to assess not only whether account numbers fall, but also how the restrictions affect young people's experiences, family relationships and perceptions of social media. Early findings indicated that some children felt less pressure to participate online after the restrictions began.
The challenge is that children can still encounter online material without holding a social media account, and they can move toward services that fall outside a particular legal definition. Australia's own rules demonstrate this complexity by excluding services such as WhatsApp, Messenger, online gaming platforms and educational services from the main restrictions. As technology changes, governments will have to determine whether new services are effectively social networks even when they are not marketed as such.
Europe Is Testing Different Models of Protection
European countries are approaching the issue less uniformly, reflecting different legal traditions and political priorities. Denmark has proposed restrictions for children under 15, while Norway has considered raising its minimum age and establishing a stronger statutory limit. France has pursued legislation restricting access for younger teenagers, while Germany relies more heavily on parental consent for some users. Spain, Sweden, Poland and Slovenia have also considered tighter age requirements or legislation aimed at strengthening platform responsibility.
The European debate is particularly complicated because age restrictions intersect with freedom of expression and privacy rights. France's experience illustrates the difficulty: a proposed under-15 social media restriction faced judicial scrutiny over its effect on fundamental rights. This means that governments cannot assume that a policy that appears effective from a child-protection perspective will automatically survive legal examination.
The European Union is considering a broader approach that goes beyond simply preventing children from opening accounts. Policymakers have increasingly focused on addictive or harmful design practices, including features that encourage prolonged engagement. This distinction could become important because a platform can potentially create risks for young users through recommendation systems and interface design even when those users meet the minimum legal age.
Other governments are adopting different combinations of restrictions. Italy requires parental consent for younger children, while Greece, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates have pursued or considered minimum-age measures. India has also seen calls for stronger age restrictions, reflecting growing concern about the way platforms attract and retain young users. These approaches indicate that governments agree increasingly on the need for intervention, even though they disagree about whether the answer should be a complete age restriction, parental approval or stricter regulation of platform behaviour.
Age Verification Could Become the Next Regulatory Battleground
The spread of minimum-age laws is creating a second major policy problem: how governments and technology companies can verify age without collecting excessive amounts of personal information. A system based on government identification may provide stronger assurance but raises privacy concerns. Facial age estimation may reduce the need to submit documents but can raise questions about accuracy and the handling of biometric information. Any large-scale verification system therefore has to balance child protection against privacy and data-security risks.
The issue is becoming more complicated because children can use multiple devices and accounts and can move between services. A system that works on one major platform may be ineffective if a young user can simply move to another service with weaker controls. This creates an incentive for governments to develop common standards rather than leaving every company to create its own approach.
The United States is taking a different path, with federal lawmakers considering stronger duties for platforms to protect minors while existing child privacy laws and state-level restrictions remain in place. The European Union is examining platform design, while China has pursued a more comprehensive system involving device-level and application-level restrictions for minors. These approaches suggest that the international debate is moving toward a broader question of how digital environments should be designed for children.
The emerging global pattern is therefore not a simple worldwide social media ban. Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, China, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, India, Italy, Malaysia, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United States and the European Union are pursuing different combinations of age limits, parental controls, platform duties, design restrictions and verification requirements. What connects them is a growing belief that the existing system, in which children could largely access social media by declaring themselves old enough, is no longer considered sufficient by many governments.
The effectiveness of this new regulatory wave will ultimately depend less on the number written into legislation than on enforcement, technology, privacy safeguards and the ability to address harmful platform design. Australia's early experience provides evidence that age restrictions can reduce account ownership, but it also shows that access is difficult to eliminate completely. As more governments adopt their own models, the central policy challenge will be finding a workable balance between protecting children from genuine online risks and preserving their legitimate access to communication, information and digital communities.
(Source:www.reuters.com)
Homepage
Send to a friend
Printable version
Share
