Sources · Social media ban for under-16s
This house would ban social media for under-16s.
Fact bank v1 · 16 cards
- SM-01True
“The UK government has decided to ban social media for under-16s, with the ban expected to take effect in 2027.”
Confirmed: on 15 June 2026 the UK government announced that platforms will be blocked from offering services to under-16s. Regulations are due before Parliament by Christmas 2026 and are expected to take effect in spring 2027.
The UK says it will follow Australia's model, with Ofcom enforcing it. Messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal are not intended to be covered. The ban was not yet in force as of September 2026.
“Social media platforms to be blocked from offering services to under-16s, marking a line in the sand and setting a new normal for future generations”
GOV.UK (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology)·Social media to be banned for under-16s in landmark government move to give kids their childhood backGovernment / parliament · 15 Jun 2026 ↗ - SM-02Mixed
“Nine in ten UK parents support banning social media for under-16s.”
The nine in ten figure comes from the UK government's consultation, which drew more than 116,000 responses from people who chose to take part. In the government's own nationally representative survey, about three quarters of parents (76%) agreed social media should have a minimum age of at least 16.
The government's research report found 91% support among parents in the self-selecting public consultation, against 76% in its representative panel of 5,010 parents. A separate YouGov poll published on 15 June 2026 found 77% of parents of under-18s would support a ban and 14% were opposed. Support is high either way, but nine in ten overstates it.
“around three quarters of parents (76%) agree that social media should have a minimum age of access of at least 16”
GOV.UK (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology), research by Savanta·Children's Wellbeing Online: Final Report (Savanta, for DSIT)Government / parliament · 15 Jul 2026 ↗Further sources for this card
- SM-03Mostly true
“Teenagers who spend more than three hours a day on social media face double the risk of mental health problems.”
A US cohort study found that more than 3 hours a day was linked to about 1.6 to 1.8 times the risk of internalising problems (such as anxiety and depression) alone, and about 2 to 2.4 times the risk of combined internalising and externalising problems.
The study followed 6,595 US adolescents aged 12 to 15 (JAMA Psychiatry, 2019). 'Double the risk' fits the combined-problems result better than the anxiety and depression result alone. It is observational, so it shows an association, not proof that social media caused the problems.
“Adolescents who spend more than 3 hours per day using social media may be at heightened risk for mental health problems, particularly internalizing problems”
JAMA Psychiatry·Associations Between Time Spent Using Social Media and Internalizing and Externalizing Problems Among US YouthPeer-reviewed research · 11 Sept 2019 ↗ - SM-04True
“When Facebook was rolled out across US colleges, students' mental health got worse.”
Confirmed: a natural experiment using Facebook's staggered arrival at US colleges found it had a negative impact on student mental health and increased reports of mental-health-related harm to academic performance.
Published in the American Economic Review in 2022, this is one of the strongest pieces of causal evidence for harm. It covers college students in the mid-2000s, not under-16s on today's platforms. The authors point to unfavourable social comparison as the likely mechanism.
“We find that the rollout of Facebook at a college had a negative impact on student mental health.”
American Economic Review (American Economic Association)·Social Media and Mental HealthPeer-reviewed research · 1 Nov 2022 ↗ - SM-05True
“Problematic social media use among adolescents in Europe rose from 7% in 2018 to 11% in 2022.”
Confirmed: WHO/Europe's HBSC survey found problematic social media use rose from 7% in 2018 to 11% in 2022, with girls higher than boys (13% vs 9%).
The survey covered almost 280,000 young people aged 11, 13 and 15 in 44 countries and regions across Europe, central Asia and Canada. 'Problematic use' means addiction-like symptoms such as being unable to control use.
“rates increasing from 7% in 2018 to 11% in 2022”
World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe·Teens, screens and mental healthIntergovernmental body · 25 Sept 2024 ↗ - SM-06True
“Australia's under-16 social media ban led to about 4.7 million accounts being removed within weeks of taking effect.”
Confirmed: the ban took effect on 10 December 2025, and Australia's eSafety Commissioner reported that about 4.7 million age-restricted accounts had been removed or restricted by mid-December 2025.
eSafety says the figure counts accounts, not children, because individuals often have several accounts. In March 2026 eSafety said it was investigating Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube for possible non-compliance, and on 31 July 2026 it said those investigations were still ongoing. An independent review of the law must be started within two years of it taking effect.
“about 4.7 million age-restricted accounts were removed or restricted from platforms as at mid-December 2025”
eSafety Commissioner (Australia)·Social Media Minimum Age: Compliance update (March 2026)Government / parliament · 31 Mar 2026 ↗ - SM-07True
“In Australia, many under-16s still have social media accounts and some are getting around the ban.”
Confirmed: in July 2026 Australia's eSafety Commissioner reported that most under-16s who had social media accounts before the law took effect had kept them or created new ones three months later, with platforms' failure to use effective age checks cited as the main reason.
In eSafety's study of more than 4,000 children and families, the share of under-16s with a social media account fell from 52.4% to 42.1%, which eSafety called a modest but statistically significant decline. Its March 2026 compliance report found some platforms let under-16s repeat the same age check until they got a 16+ result. The UK says its own ban will require stronger age checks.
“most under-16s who had social media accounts before commencement were able to either retain them or create new ones at the three-month mark”
eSafety Commissioner (Australia)·Early insights from eSafety's comprehensive evaluation projectGovernment / parliament · 31 Jul 2026 ↗ - SM-08True
“In the UK, 81% of 10 to 12 year olds use social media even though most platforms set a minimum age of 13.”
Confirmed: Ofcom's 2025 research, cited by the UK government, found 81% of 10 to 12 year olds use at least one social media app or site, and 86% have their own account on a social media, messaging or video-sharing platform.
The figures come from Ofcom's survey of October and November 2024, in which children aged 8 to 17 answered for themselves. Most social media services that set a minimum age use 13, in line with the age of digital consent.
“found that 81% of 10–12-year-olds use at least one social media app or site”
UK Government (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology)·Growing up in the online world: a national conversation (CP 1528)Government / parliament · 2 Mar 2026 ↗ - SM-09True
“Far fewer teens say social media harms them personally than say it harms their peers, and most say it helps them feel connected to friends.”
Confirmed: in Pew's US survey, 14% of teens said social media has a negative effect on them, compared with 48% who said so about people their age. About three-quarters said it makes them feel more connected to friends.
The survey covered 1,391 US teens aged 13 to 17. The share saying social media is mostly negative for their peers rose from 32% in 2022 to 48%, so both sides can cite it.
“Far fewer teens say social media have a negative effect on them than say this of their peers (14% vs. 48%)”
Pew Research Center·10 facts about teens and social mediaIndependent research institute · 10 Jul 2025 ↗ - SM-10True
“Across OECD countries, 15-year-olds who use social media moderately do better in maths than both non-users and heavy users.”
Confirmed: OECD analysis of PISA 2022 data found maths scores were highest for moderate users, lower for both non-users and heavy users, and fell steadily beyond three hours a day.
This is a correlation, not proof of cause and effect. The same OECD paper says the average 15-year-old spends almost 35 hours a week on social media, and that research on wellbeing is 'complex and nuanced'.
“Mathematics performance is highest among students who use social media moderately, with both non-users and heavy users performing worse.”
OECD·Growing up in the social media age (OECD Digital Economy Papers No. 385)Intergovernmental body · 1 Jun 2026 ↗ - SM-11True
“Face-scanning age checks are least reliable for teenagers close to 16, the exact age a ban needs to police.”
Confirmed: Australia's government-funded age assurance trial found facial age estimation was less accurate for younger users and least certain near the 16+ and 18+ thresholds, as summarised by the UK government.
The trial's headline finding was that age assurance can be done privately and effectively, but that no single method suits every case. Checking a child's ID is also hard because many children have no official photo ID.
“have higher levels of uncertainty when determining the age of users close to the 16+ or 18+ age threshold”
UK Government (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology)·Growing up in the online world: a national conversation (CP 1528)Government / parliament · 2 Mar 2026 ↗ - SM-12Mostly false
“Science has proven that social media causes mental illness in children.”
The UK government's own evidence summary says the evidence on screen time and children's mental health is mixed and no causal link has been found. A 2025 review by UK academics led by Professor Amy Orben found associations but a lack of high-quality causal evidence.
No proven causal link does not mean there is no harm. Some quasi-experimental studies suggest harm (see SM-04), and the government says the absence of a causal finding does not rule one out.
“The evidence around screentime and the impact on children's mental health is mixed, and no causal link has been found.”
UK Government (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology)·Growing up in the online world: a national conversation (CP 1528)Government / parliament · 2 Mar 2026 ↗ - SM-13False
“Under Australia's ban, children or their parents are fined if kids use social media.”
Australia's law puts the burden entirely on platforms. There are no penalties for young people who get access, or for parents and educators who help them.
Platforms must take 'reasonable steps' to stop under-16s creating or keeping accounts, and the eSafety Commissioner enforces this. The UK has said the same for its planned ban: responsibility sits with platforms, not children.
“No penalties are foreseen for young people gaining access to social media, or parents and educators who may provide such access.”
OECD·Growing up in the social media age (OECD Digital Economy Papers No. 385)Intergovernmental body · 1 Jun 2026 ↗ - SM-14False
“Australia's law completely blocks under-16s from seeing anything on platforms like YouTube or TikTok.”
Australia's law stops under-16s from having accounts on age-restricted platforms, not from viewing content. eSafety says under-16s can still see publicly available content that does not require logging in, such as most content on YouTube.
Platforms that fail to take reasonable steps to keep under-16s off can face court-imposed fines of up to 150,000 penalty units, which eSafety now puts at A$54.6 million. It was quoted as A$49.5 million before the Commonwealth penalty unit rose from A$330 to A$364 on 1 July 2026. Services whose sole or primary purpose is messaging or online gaming are excluded.
“Under-16s are still allowed to see publicly available social media content that doesn’t require being logged into an account.”
eSafety Commissioner (Australia)·Social media 'ban' or delay FAQsGovernment / parliament · 16 Sept 2026 ↗ - SM-15Mixed
“UK VPN use doubled because children were using VPNs to get round online age checks.”
UK VPN use did more than double after mandatory age checks began on 25 July 2025, from about 650,000 daily users to a peak of over 1.4 million in mid-August 2025. But the UK government and Ofcom say the evidence does not show the rise was driven by children trying to get round age checks.
It is impossible to know how many VPN users are children. Ofcom's July 2026 report, using mobile app data from a different supplier, estimated 2.2 million daily UK VPN users against 1.2 million before the checks. Its March 2026 survey found a quarter of 11 to 17 year olds in Great Britain had used a VPN in the past six months, but only 5% had used one to reach content meant for older people or age-restricted features, which Ofcom says may be an underestimate. In July 2026 the UK government said it will not ban or age-gate VPNs.
“early evidence does not suggest the peak in VPN use was driven by children seeking to bypass age assurance processes.”
UK Government (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology)·Growing up in the online world: a national conversation (CP 1528)Government / parliament · 2 Mar 2026 ↗ - SM-16Mostly false
“Teen mental health in the US keeps getting worse year after year.”
CDC data show persistent sadness or hopelessness among US high school students rose from 30% in 2015 to a peak of 42% in 2021, then fell to 40% in 2023 and 33% in 2025. It is still worse than a decade ago but has improved recently.
The figures come from the CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Survey. The CDC describes the trend as improved over two years but worse over ten. Recent improvement weakens claims of a relentless decline, but not the concern about the longer-term rise.
“In 2025, 33% of high school students experienced persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness during the past 12 months.”
US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention·Mental Health and Suicide Risks (Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System)Government / parliament · 18 Sept 2026 ↗
The judge is an AI model. It can only rule on claims these cards cover. Everything else stays unverified, and it never rules on opinions. See every motion's cards.