Big talk on imminent UK social media law as consultation closes

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is promising to act “very, very quickly” to put legal age restrictions on social media platforms, following the conclusion of the public consultation on the matter, which closed this week. That could mean legislation before the end of the year – if the government can follow through on its vow to be swift and bold in regulating large social media platforms, and avoid being stonewalled by the legal arm of Big Tech.

Whether it involves biometric age verification or not, legally, the UK is obligated to take action on social media. Per information from UK Parliament, “Part 3 of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 will require the government to impose some form of age or functionality restrictions for children under 16.” But skepticism remains that the government can deliver, among critics who say they’ve heard the promises before, but have yet to see results.

Regardless, the consultation saw responses from doctors, police, providers and parents – all of whom, despite differing on the details, agree that it’s time to do something.

Social media as harmful as smoking: UK doctors aligned

As part of the consultation, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges issued a statement contextualizing the harms that social media causes, saying unequivocally that “it ranks alongside smoking and wearing seatbelts as a unifying force for the medical profession.”

“There can be few issues which have united clinicians so resoundingly in recent years as the impact that unfettered access to tech and devices is currently having on children and young people’s health,” says the organization, as quoted by Reuters.

UK police are also in agreement. In their contribution to the public consultation, the National Crime Agency (NCA) and National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) support blocking youth access to social media, AI and gaming sites that refuse to remove or disable high-risk features that lead to “harm at scale.”

The law enforcement organizations have identified six of the worst: “mass discoverability of children, unrestricted contact from unknown adults, private or encrypted messaging, algorithms that promote harmful and illegal content, nude image sharing or streaming, and weak age checks allowing children to easily access adult environments.”

The BBC quotes NCA director general Graeme Biggar, who says “our assessment is clear: the online environment in its current form is not safe for children. The industry response has been too slow, while the problem has been getting worse. Enough is enough.”

Legislation without enforcement risks being political decoration

At this stage, the problem is not hard to parse. Many of what the police consider high-risk features are already prohibited by the Online Safety Act, which also mandates highly effective age assurance for access to age-restricted sites.

The problem is not necessarily the law – and that matters in the context of UK legislation.

In dire political straits, Keir Starmer is desperate for a win. Given the medical consensus on social media harms, a law that takes cues from Australia’s Social Media Minimum Age requirement is an easy goal for the PM. Few will stand to defend endless doomscrolling for teens. But whether or not the law has the intended effect, or ends up as more political window dressing, hinges on the question of enforcement and consequences for noncompliance.

Ofcom, the UK regulator responsible for enforcing the OSA, has imposed fines on several adult content sites, as well as large social media platforms. While adult content sites do not like the rules, the largest of them have toed the line, implementing biometric age assurance methods for proof of age. If you are in the UK and want to access Pornhub, you must complete an age check.

Outliers remain, and Ofcom has promised to prosecute smaller porn sites to maintain a level playing field. But in general, it can be said that the adult content industry has made good on its claims to want to keep kids off its sites, by following the prescribed rules, albeit begrudgingly.

‘Post on my sites, ye mighty, and despair!’

Social media is a different story. Meta has challenged Ofcom’s fines, arguing they are disproportionate. NetChoice, the legal lobby for Silicon Valley’s biggest companies, relentlessly litigates age assurance legislation in the U.S., and argues that app stores are the best place for age checks. In Europe, major social platforms have taken fire for spreading AI-generated child pornography and digital sexual violence; while Big Tech pledges to solider on with its efforts to crack down on such material, Meta pushes its facial recognition glasses, which a host of civil liberties organizations argue will give stalkers and abusers the ability to silently identify strangers in public.

The truth is that Meta, and by extension its peers, does not care what the law thinks.

While Meta and X wear the corporate guise of regular companies, they are not. These firms, in particular, have always operated as de facto vanity projects for wealthy CEOs with a technocratic vision for the world at large. They are cults of personality: think of Mark Zuckerberg’s conquered neighbourhood, or Elon Musk’s use of X as a bullhorn to quote Bible verse at the Pope, or berate popular but fictional TV show hero Homelander. In this, they are the heirs of the press barons of the 20th century, who aimed to shape the global narrative through their mass media properties. (TikTok, less so, is nonetheless dogged by an association with Chinese espionage.)

The impact that people like William Randolph Hearst, Lord Beaverbrook and Rupert Murdoch have had on the world is complex and debatable. The issue with social media is that, instead of broadsheets and cable news – traditionally adult concerns – tech CEOs are beaming their messages straight into the pocket and brain of everyone from kids to seniors, without regard for the effects. They do so from positions of such wealth that they are largely disconnected from would-be normal ideas of scale or entitlement. If, as Marshall McLuhan suggested, the medium is the message, then the message Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk are sending is: I am a god.

This is the context in which regulatory bodies must work to keep companies like Meta and X in line. As such, it is no surprise they are having trouble policing the rules and imposing penalties that actually have enough of an impact to change how these companies operate. From a regulatory perspective, it is nearly impossible to fine Meta enough that it matters; getting anywhere near a truly impactful number would trigger massive legal pushback from men with billions to spare.

A little less conversation, a little more action

In light of the challenge facing regulators, there’s no surprise the government’s words come off as tepid. Keir Starmer has promised policy that is “a game changer.”

“We will be decisive,” he says in a report from the Independent, “because it’s absolutely clear to me that we need to take action to protect children, and we can act quickly.” The government is “going further, consulting on options from age limits and app curfews to outright bans.”

The sentiment with which Starmer’s repeated statements are increasingly received by campaigners is aptly summed up by a plea from former minister Lord Nash, who had pushed for brisk action: “Please, just get on with it.”

Conservative MP Katie Lam similarly mused that the “challenge with this Government is they don’t really seem to do anything very quickly.”

Concern is amplified by the precarious position Starmer finds himself in after recent UK elections saw results swing in favor of the opposition, as he faces calls to resign as leader of the Labour party.

Use school year, not birth year, for age thresholds: Verifymy

One thorny issue for regulators is how digital prohibitions could affect classroom dynamics. A release from UK age assurance provider Verifymy, which specializes in email-based age checks, argues that “restrictions such as curfews or limits on addictive features, as well as a full ban, risk creating a two-tier system in schools, where pupils in the same year face different rules based on their birthday.”

Verifymy’s contribution to the public consultation suggests a “small change to proposals that could level the playing field.” Namely, aligning age-based restrictions to the academic year, rather than a birthday.

That would mean “those in the same class follow the same rules, avoiding bullying and peer pressure; teachers could also prepare year groups before they get access to higher-risk features.”

“If schoolchildren are to be prohibited from using social media, or have functionality tailored to their age, we should think carefully about how, where, and when these restrictions will be enforced,” says Andy Lulham, chief operating officer of Verifymy. “Applying restrictions by school year, rather than an uneven approach using exact birthdays, keeps pupils in the same class on an equal footing. It avoids the awkwardness and social tension that can happen when some children can use social media, while their friends cannot.”

Lulham says the proposal is technically viable, too. “The ID scan logic used to assess young users’ ages can easily be adapted to a specific minimum date of birth for all children. This could be any date and would only need to be updated once annually, with age-estimation buffers also adapted accordingly, rather than treating individuals in the same school year differently.:

“While the concept would need to be refined before implementation, we feel like it would create a safer and more robust policy.”

Problem is ‘built into the system itself’

There are groups whose pushback on age verification, age estimation and other age assurance tech is an argument that it’s not enough. The Children’s Coalition for Online Safety, led by 5Rights Foundation, is among them.

5Rights Foundation Executive Director Leanda Barrington-Leach says “we will not fix this by tinkering around the edges, by tweaking features or relying on age limits alone.”

“The issue is not a single product or setting; it is built into the system itself, into business models and design choices that prioritize engagement, data extraction and profit over children’s wellbeing.”

What these groups have not yet realized, or said out loud, is cracking down on design choices that prioritize engagement, data extraction and profit would probably mean shutting down the major platforms as they currently exist. A gun with no trigger, no chamber and no barrel is just a piece of scrap.

Article Topics

age verification  |  biometric age estimation  |  children  |  Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill  |  legislation  |  regulation  |  social media  |  UK age verification  |  VerifyMy