UK consultation shows overwhelming support for social media age limits

In our polarized political world, consensus on any given policy issue is almost impossible, especially when biometrics are involved. Politics, special interests and opposing concerns tend to split the vote – unless public opinion faces a threat that has been defined so clearly that a response becomes reflexive.

UK lawmakers have not yet formally answered the question of whether to put age limits on social media. But the public has. Newly released data from the government’s ‘Growing up in the online world’ consultation, which ran from March 2 to May 26, 2026, shows that 89 percent of parents and carers who responded support “a legal requirement for social media services to have a minimum age of access.”

According to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), of these, 96 percent “agreed to some extent that social media services should have a minimum age of access of at least 16 and should not be accessible to any children under that age.”

The caveats and limitations of DSIT’s findings are listed on its website. But based on this sample, it would seem that the vast majority of UK parents don’t want their kids on social media, any more than they want them watching porn.

AVPA says age checks are proven to work – when platforms use them

The age assurance sector has weighed in on the consultation, with statements coming from the Age Verification Providers Association (AVPA) and the Age Check Certification Scheme (ACCS).

While neutral on underlying policy matters that will be decided by government, AVPA’s contribution is supervisory: “to ensure that whatever framework is chosen is technically grounded, practically enforceable and genuinely effective at protecting children.”

“Our central message is that the same technical infrastructure is required whether the policy outcome is a ban on under-16s accessing social media or a system of graduated, age-appropriate protections,” says a release summarizing the submission. “In either case, independently certified age assurance – deployed at the point of access, not upstream at device or app-store level – is the essential foundation.”

The organization now works on the foundational evidence that privacy preserving age assurance is possible. These days, its attention is focused on a trickier problem: how to get platforms to use it properly. AVPA points to the case of Australia, where data has shown that, “despite a legal minimum age of 16 being in force, 55 percent of 13-15 year olds in Australia were still using TikTok, 49 percent Instagram and 73 percent YouTube.”

“The technology to prevent this existed. The legal obligation existed. What was absent was a requirement for independently certified age assurance, without which self-assessed compliance is meaningless, compounded by the challenges many regulators face in delivering tough enforcement at speed.”

Broadly, the statement is in keeping with AVPA’s recent strategy documents, laying out arguments for why age checks should happen on platforms rather than app stores; why platforms “must be required to offer multiple certified methods and to fund backstop options such as CitizenCard or PASS-accredited professional attestation at no cost to the user,” and why VPNs don’t present the sort of problem for age assurance tech as some would suggest. (“VPN-aware age assurance – using the technical and behavioural indicators already deployed by broadcasters and regulated gambling operators – is both more proportionate and more effective.”)

Tying age assurance to gov’t ID could corrode public trust

It also devotes significant attention to the question of “proposals that would make government-issued digital ID the primary or default mechanism for age assurance.” This is code for the GOV.UK wallet, which has caused increasing concern in the industry that a government wallet would become the default option for many, crowding out private sector digital ID providers certified under the government’s Digital Verification Services (DVS) trust framework.

But AVPA grounds its objection in a legitimate call to avoid blurring the line between age assurance and identity verification. The industry is already dealing with an optics and communication challenge in explaining how age assurance is possible without the use of government ID – and the government is threatening to exacerbate it.

“A requirement for age confirmation must not become, in practice or in public perception, a requirement to present identity to access online services,” it says. “That conflation would be corrosive to public trust in the entire framework and would deter uptake, particularly among those most concerned about surveillance.”

“Age confirmation and identity verification are distinct functions and must remain so, with age assurance delivered through a competitive, independently certified private sector rather than concentrated in a single state-issued credential.”

ACCS points to mountain of practical, operational evidence

In its response, posted to LinkedIn by chief executive Tony Allen, the Age Check Certification Scheme (ACCS) highlights the growing body of literature and documentation on age assurance, which includes the final report from the Australian Age Assurance Technology Trial, communiqués from the past three Global Age Assurance Standards Summits, and the international standards, ISO/IEC 27566-1:2025 and IEEE 2089.1.

Allen echoes AVPA, noting that “one of the key points made throughout our submission is that age assurance is no longer hypothetical. The question is no longer whether age assurance can be done. The evidence demonstrates clearly that it can.” Likewise, he emphasises the importance of distinguishing between age assurance and identity verification.

The ACCS urges policymakers, regulators, platforms and stakeholders to “move beyond simplistic narratives around age assurance and engage with the substantial international evidence base, standards ecosystem and conformity assessment infrastructure that now exists.”

“The real policy questions are now what level of assurance is proportionate for a given risk; how privacy and inclusion are protected; how systems are independently assessed; how effectiveness is monitored over time; and how governments create interoperable and accountable regulatory frameworks.”

Allen and the ACCS see an opportunity for the UK to lead on age assurance internationally, “by building on the existing ecosystem of standards, accreditation, conformity assessment and practical implementation experience rather than relying solely on platform declaration or blunt prohibitions.”

“The challenge now is one of governance, proportionality and accountability, not technical impossibility.

Article Topics

Age Check Certification Scheme (ACCS)  |  age verification  |  AVPA  |  digital trust  |  social media  |  UK age verification