Industry warns of risks of “blunt” social media ban for children

The idea of banning social media for children is moving rapidly from political talking point to serious policy consideration. But industry representatives warn that bans risk being a blunt instrument that could create unintended harms, while the UK regulator stresses the need to see evidence of the benefits of a ban.

Since Australia became the first country in the world to ban social media use for children under 16 – with its Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act passed by the Australian Parliament in November 2024 and taking effect on 10 December 2025 – similar debates have emerged in Europe.

On 27 January 2026, France’s Assemblée Nationale voted to ban social media for under-15s pending approval by the French Senate, and in the UK the House of Lords voted in favour of an Australian-style social media ban for under-16s, although it still requires approval by the House of Commons.

Calls for caution
But at Deloitte’s Digital Regulatory Outlook 2026 webinar, industry representatives urged caution.

“There’s a huge conversation happening on whether the government should implement a social media ban for under-16s,” said Samiah Anderson, Head of Digital Regulation at techUK.

“There is a fundamental agreement and alignment between industry, society and researchers saying we shouldn’t establish a social media ban.”

The alternative to a ban is regulation, but this poses compliance challenges, as platforms and services vary widely in size and scope.

Anderson argued for flexibility: “There should be a plurality of options for services to be compliant.”

Unintended harms
Meta’s Phillip Malloch warned that a ban may not remove risk, but simply relocate it, driving young people away from regulated platforms into less safe spaces.

“You don’t want to find young people running to less protected experiences,” he said.

Rather than bans, Malloch argued the focus should be on systemic, infrastructure-level solutions, including a unified age signal.

“The best place for this is at the OS and app store level,” he said. “Then we have complementary systems we can run.”

A silver bullet?
“We are not the online world but an enabler of the online world and we care enormously,” said Ben Wreschner, Regulatory Policy Director, Vodafone Group.

“Where we can play a role is age verification through the contractual process.”

But such technology won’t necessarily provide the whole solution to protecting children online.

“Age assurance has a positive role to play but there’s no silver bullet to protecting children online,” said Anderson.

Wreschner also highlighted the practical difficulty of banning platforms that serve multiple purposes:

“Where we are going to have a problem is where there are platforms that have mixed use.”

Ultimately, he advocated for a more nuanced solution than an outright ban.

“It’s a blunt tool to say you have to ban the whole thing,” he said.

Evidence first
Kate Davies, Group Director for Strategy and Research at UK communications regulator Ofcom, reinforced that child safety policy must be grounded in international learning and robust evidence.

She highlighted that the UK is watching and learning from the Australian experience, with a joint working group in action. “Evidence is everything,” she said.

This approach was echoed by techUK. “Let’s follow an evidence-based position. We shouldn’t be rushing ahead,” said Anderson. “We should continue to learn lessons.”