• Download the survey here. 

A third of children in the UK admitted to bypassing online age checks in the past two months, while more than a quarter of parents said they had either helped their child do so or ‘turned a blind eye’, according to a May 2026 survey by Internet Matters examining age verification under the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA). The survey of 1,270 UK children aged 9 to 16 and their parents found that 32% of children had circumvented age checks, while 26% of parents said they had allowed it, raising questions about how effective the OSA’s age assurance measures are in practice.

Age verification remains easy to bypass

• 53% of children said they had been asked to verify their age online over a two-month period.
• Platforms most commonly asking for age verification:
  • TikTok (34%)
  • Google/YouTube (26%)
  • Roblox (17%)
• Verification methods used:
  • facial age recognition (37%),
  • third-party apps (24%),
  • government ID (22%).
• 46% of children said age checks were easy to bypass, while 17% said they were difficult.
• 32% of children admitted to bypassing age restrictions. They used methods like:
  • fake birthdate (13%),
  • someone else’s login (9%),
  • another person’s device (8%),
  • VPN (7%),
  • someone else’s ID (6%).
• 26% of parents said they had allowed their child to bypass age checks:
  • actively helped (17%),
  • allowed it or ignored it (9%).
• 84% of parents supported age checks for pornography access.
• 62% of parents said they were concerned about their child bypassing age checks, which rose to 73% among parents of vulnerable children.

Children still encounter harmful content online

• 42% of children said the online world had become safer recently, while 16% said it had become less safe.
• Among parents, 39% said online spaces were safer, and 28% said they were less safe.
• 49% of children said they had experienced harm online in the previous month, which included:
  • violent content (12%),
  • unrealistic body type content (11%),
  • racist, homophobic, or sexist content (10%),
  • requests for personal information (8%),
  • and explicit sexual content (7%).
• 59% of children said they stay up late using devices.
• 46% said they continue consuming content even when no longer enjoying it.
• 45% said they had stopped sports or exercise to stay online.
• 63% of children said they were worried about fake news and AI-generated content.
• 27% said they had believed a fake or AI-generated news story.
• 37% of parents considered social media platforms safe for children. By comparison:
  • gaming platforms (64%),
  • AI chatbots (53%).

Safety features are becoming more visible: Separately, the report found that families were increasingly noticing new online safety features introduced after the OSA came into force.

• 67% of parents and 68% of children reported noticing changes on online platforms.
• These included:
  • age verification prompts,
  • clearer content warnings,
  • easier reporting tools,
  • restrictions on livestreaming and messaging,
  • expanded parental controls.

In addition, 64% of parents reported noticing new or improved parental control tools. Children largely supported the changes, with 90% responding positively to easier blocking and reporting systems. However, many respondents also argued that the measures still fall short of meaningfully improving children’s online experiences.

Why this matters: From Karnataka’s budget speech announcement to Andhra Pradesh’s 90-day deadline to Goa’s consideration of similar measures, Indian states are moving to ban children’s access to social media.

Yet, the UK’s experience should temper expectations about what a ban actually delivers. Even after new child safety protections came into force, nearly half of the children surveyed still encountered harmful content online. More tellingly, a third found ways around age checks, often with a parent’s help. 

Australia, whose ban Indian states are explicitly modelling, saw no discernible drop in cyberbullying or image-based abuse complaints from under-16 users as of March 2026, suggesting that removing accounts doesn’t remove exposure to harm.

The hard questions regulators need to ask, based on global experience, are whether there is evidence to justify a ban, whether it can work in practice, and whether it amounts to regulation for the sake of regulation without investigating and challenging the algorithmic designs of the platforms that cause harm.

Also read

• Meta expands AI-based age assurance for teens amid rising regulatory pressure
• US Jury Holds Meta, Google Liable for Addictive Design Harming Teen Mental Health
• Karnataka Teen Social Media Ban: Citizens Online Agree On The Problem, Question If Ban Is the Answer