REPORT: Social media bans for minors — the global wave crashing on Big Tech

REPORT: Social media bans for minors — the global wave crashing on Big Tech

Introduction: A movement that crosses every border

From Sydney to London, the same parental anger

In December 2025, Australia became the first country in the world to formally ban children under 16 from social media — a decision that seemed radical, isolated, even utopian at the time. Six months later, that law is no longer an exception. It is the reference model that governments around the world are competing to adopt. In the United Kingdom, in Brazil, in Austria, in Denmark — everywhere, the same political equation is being posed: digital platforms have failed children, and governments are reclaiming authority.

This is not coincidence. It is the convergence of a decade of accumulated evidence on the effects of social media on adolescent mental health, of mounting political pressure from millions of exhausted parents, and of the patent failure of self-regulation by the major platforms. Meta, TikTok, Snap, X — they had years to adapt. They chose to optimize for addictive engagement. Governments have decided to respond.

The number that says everything: 90% of UK parents

When the British government launched its consultation on banning social media for children under 16, it received 116,000 responses — including 54,000 from parents and 14,000 from children. The result: 90% of parents support the ban. That level of political consensus is extraordinarily rare in a liberal democracy. It says something essential about the state of society: families feel they have lost their children to a system designed to capture them.

On June 15, 2026, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer formally announced the ban. Legislation is expected by late 2026, with the law taking effect in spring 2027. Targeted platforms include Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, X, and YouTube. The planned fines rank among the most severe anywhere in the world.

Australia the pioneer: six months after the law, the verdict

The law of December 10, 2025: a first global test

Australia took the leap on December 10, 2025. The law prohibits access to social media for children under 16, with fines of up to A$49.5 million for non-compliant platforms. That is a sum that gives even Silicon Valley giants pause. The government in Canberra bet that a sufficiently heavy financial penalty would force platforms to innovate on age verification. That bet is still being validated.

After three months of enforcement, results are mixed according to several independent assessments. Platforms have put in place age verification systems of variable effectiveness. VPNs remain accessible and allow many teenagers to bypass the restrictions. But the Australian law has above all had a massive symbolic and political effect: it proved that standing up to Big Tech is politically possible, and that public opinion would follow.

The VPN bypass problem

The bypass question sits at the heart of every debate about these laws. A cheap — even free — VPN is enough for a 14-year-old to access any platform from any country. Preiskel, a firm specializing in digital law, highlights this risk in its June 23, 2026 analysis: without a robust age verification system on the platform side and the device side, the laws risk targeting only the least tech-savvy young people — precisely those who needed the protection least.

The DSIT (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) in the UK is working on an age verification framework that does not require transmitting sensitive identity data to platforms — a delicate balance between privacy protection and effective control. This is the central technical challenge of all this legislation: how to verify without surveilling, how to protect without filing dossiers.

Brazil, Austria, Denmark: a legislative wave without precedent

Brazil and its Digital Statute of Children

On March 17, 2026, Brazil brought its Digital Statute of Children into force — a law that bans social media for children under 16 unless a legal guardian provides consent and supervision, and that explicitly prohibits infinite scroll features and push notifications designed to maximize addictive engagement. It is the first law in the world to target not only access but the addictive design mechanisms themselves.

This is a major conceptual advance: the problem is not only that teenagers are on social media — it is that these networks are deliberately engineered to create dependency. Infinite scroll, notifications, likes — these features were optimized by neuro-engineering teams to exploit the cognitive vulnerabilities of developing brains. Targeting the design means targeting the root cause.

Austria and Denmark join the movement

In March 2026, Austria announced its bill banning social media for children under 14, with legislation finalized before summer. Denmark, for its part, had announced a ban for those under 15 back in November 2025. France, a precursor with its law setting the digital age of majority at 15 since 2023, sees its model validated after the fact by this global convergence. Norway and Malaysia complete the picture of a wave sparing neither the Nordic countries nor Southeast Asia.

The diversity of these nations is perhaps the most striking aspect of this convergence. These are not countries sharing a political system, a culture, or a common level of economic development. They are very different societies arriving at the same conclusion: digital platforms constitute a systemic risk to children that markets cannot regulate on their own.

What the science says: a decade of evidence

The documented effect on adolescent mental health

The scientific data accumulated since 2012 — the year smartphones surpassed 50% penetration in developed countries — builds a coherent and alarming picture. Rates of anxiety and depression among adolescents, particularly girls, increased significantly and in parallel with the mass adoption of social media. The studies of Jonathan Haidt and Jean Twenge have quantified this correlation across dozens of countries.

The mechanism is well understood: constant social comparison, online harassment around the clock, fear of missing out (FOMO), sleep disruption from nighttime use, and exposure to algorithmically optimized content designed for emotional shock. Adolescent brains, still developing — the prefrontal cortex does not consolidate until age 25 — are particularly vulnerable to these mechanisms.

Big Tech knew — and did nothing

Meta's internal documents revealed by whistleblower Frances Haugen in 2021 were unequivocal: the company knew Instagram was harmful to teenage girls, had internal data proving it, and chose not to act in order to preserve user growth. This was not a lapse in judgment. It was a deliberate decision to prioritize revenue over child safety.

Since then, Meta has announced "supervised modes," TikTok has created a "family mode," YouTube has launched "kid-friendly spaces." These measures exist. They are insufficient, little used, and easily bypassed. The reason is simple: an engaged user, even a minor, generates advertising data. The economic incentive runs directly against protection.

The European Union: behind, but moving

The DSA and its current limits

The European Union has the Digital Services Act (DSA), in force since 2024, which imposes transparency and risk management obligations on large platforms. But the DSA does not set a uniform minimum age for social media access — it defers to national legislation for the protection of minors. The result: 27 different laws, thresholds ranging from 13 to 16, and a regulatory cacophony that platforms skillfully exploit to minimize their actual obligations.

Discussions on a harmonized European directive on minors and social media access are ongoing, but no specific timeline has been announced. This is a troubling delay: while the United Kingdom (outside the EU since Brexit) moves rapidly, the EU at 27 struggles to align. European children deserve the same level of protection as their Australian or British counterparts.

Ofcom as a regulatory model

Ofcom, the UK's communications regulator, has in a few years become the global reference for digital platform regulation. More than 100 investigations opened, more than 4 million pounds sterling in fines issued — and an increasingly sophisticated methodology for assessing platform compliance with their safety obligations. The Ofcom model is being studied by regulators in Europe, Canada, and Australia.

What distinguishes Ofcom is its systemic approach: rather than punishing on a case-by-case basis, it evaluates the overall design of platforms — recommendation algorithms, default settings, escalation mechanisms toward extreme content. This is regulation of the logic of the system, not just of its most visible excesses.

Big Tech's resistance: lobbying and litigation

The civil liberties argument

The platforms and their allies have developed an arsenal of arguments against these laws. The central argument: the ban violates young people's freedom of expression — their right to access information, organize, and communicate online. This is a serious argument that deserves to be taken seriously — particularly in contexts of social movements or peer support around mental health or identity.

But this argument conflates access to the internet — which remains free — with access to platforms engineered for addiction. A 15-year-old can still read newspapers online, watch documentaries, exchange messages directly with friends. What is being restricted is the infinite algorithmic feed optimized to maximize engagement at the expense of well-being.

Meta and TikTok's aggressive lobbying

Meta has spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying to slow or weaken legislation in half a dozen countries. TikTok, aware of its particular vulnerability as a Chinese application in a geopolitically charged environment, has adopted a more defensive strategy — proposing its own age verification measures to avoid outright bans. These lobbying strategies reveal just how much minor users represent a non-negligible share of the platforms' economic model.

Estimates vary, but teenagers aged 13 to 17 account for between 15% and 25% of time spent on certain platforms according to available market studies. Losing them legally represents a meaningful loss in advertising data. The platforms' opposition is not philosophical. It is financial.

The enforcement challenge: between ideal and reality

Age verification systems: where do things stand?

Age verification is the Achilles' heel of all this legislation. Current methods include: digital identity cards (available in several EU countries but not universal), bank card verification (which excludes minors without cards), third-party Age Verification Providers, and parental controls on devices. Each of these methods has its flaws and its risks for privacy.

The United Kingdom is working on a "privacy-preserving age verification" model — verification that confirms age without revealing identity to the platform. Technically possible through zero-knowledge proofs, this system is still under development. The updated RSHE (Relationships, Sex and Health Education) curriculum taking effect in September 2026 will now include a module on digital safety to prepare young people to navigate this regulated environment.

The role of parents and schools

Experts agree on one point: the law alone is not enough. It must be accompanied by serious digital literacy education in schools and concrete support to help parents understand and use parental control tools. Without this educational dimension, there is a risk of creating two categories of children: those whose parents are informed and actively protect them, and those who navigate alone in an environment where society says "it's banned" without helping them understand why.

Holding platforms accountable does not release society from collective responsibility. Recommendation algorithms, default settings, interface design — all of it must evolve. Laws create the legal incentive. Education builds resilience. Both are needed simultaneously.

The future: toward a digital governance of childhood

The next regulatory battles

Regulating social media for minors is only the first step of a far broader legislative project. Governments are preparing to take on recommendation algorithms themselves — not just access, but the targeting logic that pushes increasingly extreme content toward young users. Legislative proposals are circulating in the European Parliament to impose neutral "default modes" for all minor users, without aggressive algorithmic personalization.

South Korea and Japan are working on regulatory frameworks that go even further: not only minimum access age, but also maximum daily usage time for minors, and an obligation for platforms to publish their data on the mental health impact of their services on users. This push toward forced transparency about platform effects may prove the most significant long-term development — more so than the bans themselves.

The role of digital education in the transition

All the most substantive legislation acknowledges a fundamental truth: laws alone are not sufficient. Digital literacy must become a subject in its own right in schools — on par with mathematics or history. Understanding how a recommendation algorithm works, recognizing an information bubble, developing critical distance from the mechanics of addictive engagement — these skills are now fundamental civic competencies.

The United Kingdom with its updated RSHE curriculum, France with its "Pix" digital skills program, the Nordic countries with their critical thinking programs integrated from primary school — these initiatives show that the battle to protect children online is won as much in classrooms as in parliaments. Banning closes the door. Education teaches how to walk through the digital world standing upright.

Conclusion: Regulation as an act of civilization

What this movement reveals about our relationship with technology

The global legislative wave on social media and minors reveals something deeper than parental panic or a culture war. It reveals that our societies are beginning to treat major digital platforms as what they truly are: power infrastructures that shape the behaviors, emotions, and beliefs of hundreds of millions of people. And like every power infrastructure — banks, media, energy grids — they require public regulation.

This is not anti-technology. It is democratic maturity. Liberal societies have always regulated what produces massive negative externalities. Tobacco is banned for minors. Driving requires a license. Alcohol is subject to age restrictions. Social media, with their demonstrated capacity to harm young people's mental health, now join this category. Not as enemies — but as subjects of an adult, responsible relationship.

What comes next

This movement will not stop at age 16 and social media. The next questions are already being asked: should video games be regulated on the same basis? Streaming platforms optimized for binge-watching? AI chatbots that form parasocial relationships with vulnerable teenagers? The regulation of social media for minors is the opening battle of a longer war over the fundamental question: who decides the conditions under which children grow up digitally?

The answer that 2026 is giving — from the United Kingdom to Australia, from Brazil to Denmark — is clear: it is democracies, not algorithms. It is parents, not the product management teams of Silicon Valley. It is citizens, not shareholders. This is a political choice. And it is the right one.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

Who I am and where I speak from

I am a columnist and analyst, not a psychologist or child development expert. My analysis draws on open sources — Preiskel, Straits Times, British, Australian, and Brazilian government reports — and on my reading of digital public policy. I believe that protecting children online is a legitimate priority for public action.

What I do not know and my biases

I am not in a position to accurately evaluate the effectiveness of age verification laws in their early enforcement phase. My conviction that social media has harmful effects on young people is solid but not infallible — some researchers nuance this consensus. I recognize that the civil liberties of teenagers also deserve protection, and that over-protection can carry its own negative effects.

Sources

Primary sources

Preiskel — Logged Off: UK social media ban proposes to redefine growing up, June 23, 2026

UK Government — PM Keir Starmer announces under-16 social media ban, June 15, 2026

Australian Government — Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2025, December 10, 2025

Brazil — Digital Statute of Children (Lei n° 15.100), March 17, 2026

Secondary sources

Straits Times — From Australia to Europe, countries curb children's social media access, April 24, 2026

Ofcom — Protecting children online: enforcement record, 2026

The Guardian — Keir Starmer confirms social media ban for under-16s, June 15, 2026