The U.K. is set to ban under-16s from several social media platforms as the government accelerates its efforts to protect young people from online harm. 

“Social media is making children unhappy. It’s making it easier for bullies to harass and abuse them, and it could even be harming their mental health,” said Starmer, arguing that such platforms are designed to be “addictive.”

“I fundamentally believe that we must harness the power of technology to build a stronger, fairer Britain,” he said. “But we must also protect our children.”

The move for a “full ban” comes after a government consultation conducted between March and May found that 9 out of 10 parents backed such a measure.

Similar legislation was enacted in Australia in December, but Starmer said the U.K. is “going further.”

“We’re not just bringing forward a ban,” he said. “We’re taking world-leading action on gaming services and live-streaming platforms.”

The Prime Minister cited concerns that “strangers can contact any child unchecked” through these means, leaving the U.K.’s youth at risk. 

While the proposed legislation has received praise, some experts question how effective such a ban will be and whether more needs to be done to protect children in the digital age.

Here’s what to know about the ban, what apps are included, how it is set to be enforced, and how a similar scheme is working out in Australia.

What social media apps are included in the ban—and what ones will remain accessible? 

The government plans to use the same model for the social media ban as Australia. Their model includes Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter).

YouTube Kids and Google Classroom will not be included in the U.K. ban. Messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal are also set to be exempt. 

While a definitive list has yet to be announced, Starmer’s plans have been met with criticism from Big Tech.

“Blanket bans push kids out of such curated, supervised, beneficial experiences and towards anonymous, less safe services,” a YouTube spokesperson told TIME. 

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, argues that a ban such as this creates new risks.

“Bans risk isolating teens from online communities and information, and driving them to unregulated alternatives that lack built-in protections and parental controls,” a spokesperson told TIME. 

Snapchat, meanwhile, says that the majority of activity on its app takes place in private messaging between friends and family. 

“An outright ban that disconnects teens from those relationships doesn’t make them safer—it may simply push them to less safe platforms,” a spokesperson told TIME.

Beyond the restrictions on social media apps, AI “romantic companion” chatbots will have to enforce a minimum age of 18.

“Similar intimate functionalities will be restricted for under-18s on AI chatbots more widely,” the government specified. 

Live-streaming sites will also be restricted, as will some online services that offer gaming. 

When is the ban expected to come into effect?

The first set of regulations will be presented to parliament before the end of the year and the changes should be implemented in  Spring 2027, according to the government's plan.

An exact timeline has yet to be determined.

How would the law be enforced?

The government has said it will use age-verification checks to ensure that under-16s are not accessing platforms included in the ban.

Ofcom, the U.K.'s regulator for communications services, will set out in the coming months “different options for effective forms of age assurance for proving whether someone is over 16 that are accurate, robust, reliable, and fair.”

A key question that has arisen is whether adults will need to prove their age to access the social media services that become age-restricted.

Per the government, many adults won’t be subjected to such checks if they’ve already got an account that has been open more than 16 years, has a credit card connected to it, or is linked to an email address that’s age-verified by other means.

Some adults will have already done age-verification checks under the existing Online Safety Act and will not need to do them again. For others, “it could be as simple as a facial recognition check for over-18s.”

After the Online Safety Act was updated to include new age-verification measures in July 2025, Ofcom reported an “initial spike” in the use of VPNs (Virtual Private Network), with U.K. daily active users of VPN apps doubling to around 1.5 million.

This spike in VPN usage “was expected” and has happened in other countries and U.S. states that have introduced age check requirements, according to Ofcom.

While still in the early stages, the government also said it is looking into “overnight curfews and breaks in infinite scrolling for under-18-year-olds.” Further details are set to be released in July.

It remains to be seen if the U.K.’s enforcement measures will echo those conducted in Australia, where social media platforms included in the ban are obligated “to take reasonable steps to prevent Australian children under 16 from having accounts on their platforms.”

There is strong evidence to support the concern that social media is having a negative impact on children and young people on an individual basis. Social media use in children is as much a concern as smoking, senior doctors have said.

“The addictive algorithms cause severe harm,” Dr. Jeanette Dickson, chair of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, told ITV. “This can be seen as children accessing extreme violence or pornography, but also not undertaking physical activity, not getting out, not socializing, and learning to play [or] learning to be with other people. Those severe harms are happening now.”

Amy Orben, professor and lead of the Digital Mental Health programme at Cambridge University, agrees there is “very good evidence that social media has harmed individuals,” pointing towards some instances in which young people's deaths have been linked to social media.

In May, after Starmer met with parents who were experiencing grief in relation to this, he vowed to act swiftly.

However, when looking more broadly, Orben says, “there's potentially a very small negative link between increased time spent on social media and well-being or mental health in whole populations of young people.”

Naomi Lott, an assistant professor of law and specialist in children’s rights at the University of Reading, says that while there remains a research gap in correlation between social media and mental well-being, exposure to violent and harmful content can indeed have a “traumatic” effect on young people.

“We also know that social media is addictive by design. The nature of this endless scrolling encourages children's use of social media,” says Lott, explaining that excessive phone use can also discourage young people from taking part in physical activities. 

But experts note that the rise in mental health issues among young people may also be due to reasons that go beyond the realm of social media.

“The idea that there's been a growth of mental health issues, and that [it] is tied directly to social media is quite simplistic,” argues Andy Miah, professor and chair of science communication and future media at the University of Salford. 

Starmer has said that laws “shape the social contract” and that the social media ban will therefore “change the conversations that parents have, and the expectations of children, over time.”

But Lott says “we need more than just the social media ban to see that cultural shift to protect children and promote children's right to play.”

There also needs to be support in place for children who suddenly find themselves without the engagements they’re used to, she says, as many young people say they rely on social media for forming and maintaining friendships.  

“Taking them out of that space may have a negative impact on their well-being,” Lott fears.

How has the scheme worked out in Australia? 

Early research indicates that a significant proportion of under-16s are still accessing social media platforms, despite the ban. 

Australia's internet regulator eSafety in March found that around 7 in 10 parents said their children still had social media accounts. 

Per the report, when parents were asked why their child had retained an account, the most common reason was that the platform had not yet asked the child to verify their age (selected by 66.8% of parents whose child still had any social media account).

eSafety is currently investigating potential non-compliance by Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube.

TIME has reached out to the respective platforms for comment.

Similar findings have also been published by organizations such as the Molly Rose Foundation, which advocates for safer online environments for young people. 

The foundation said that around 60% of 12-15 year olds in Australia still had a social media account, according to research conducted in March, and warned it "would be a high stakes gamble for the U.K. to follow suit now."

“I am proud of the world-leading work Australia is doing to fight for a safer online world for our children. We have a long way to go, and we knew it would not be easy,” said Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in a statement to TIME. 

“Australian parents led this effort, and we are proud to back them. We have already seen more than 5 million under-16s accounts removed, deactivated, or restricted. Social media companies have a social responsibility, and we make no apology for holding them to account to help keep kids safe.”

If you or someone you know may be experiencing a mental-health crisis or contemplating suicide, call or text 988. In emergencies, call 911, or seek care from a local hospital or mental health provider.