Social Media Ban and Parenting: What the New Rules Mean for Families in England and Wales
The UK government has confirmed that social media companies will be required to stop offering their services to under-16s, with the first restrictions of the social media ban expected to come into force in spring 2027. For families in England and Wales that raises practical questions: what the rules actually cover, who is responsible for enforcing them, and what happens when separated parents disagree about phones, apps and screen time. This page explains the position as things stand and where to find official updates.
Position as at 24 August 2026. The detail will be set out in regulations that have not yet been made, so we review this page as the rules develop.
Key Takeaways
- Social media companies will be required to stop offering their services to under-16s. Platforms named by the government include Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X. The government intends to lay the first regulations before Parliament by the end of 2026, with restrictions expected in force in spring 2027, alongside the existing Online Safety Act framework.
- The legal duty sits with the platforms, not with families. Ofcom will regulate and enforce, and the government has been clear that responsibility for compliance rests with platforms rather than with children.
- Even with stronger laws, parents play a vital role in children’s online safety. The law cannot monitor every mobile phone or device in every bedroom – ongoing conversations and shared household rules remain essential.
- The ban is aimed at the biggest social media services. Messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal are not intended to be included, and separate restrictions on livestreaming and stranger contact will apply more widely, including on gaming services. Children will still be online and will still need guidance.
- 16 and 17-year-olds will get default protections rather than a cliff-edge at 16: overnight access restricted between midnight and 6am, notifications muted overnight, and autoplay and personalised feeds switched off. Young people can change these settings themselves.
- Separated parents often disagree about screen rules. Most disagreements are settled between parents or in mediation. The family court is a last resort and, where it is asked to decide, the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration.
- This page covers practical steps parents can take now, what changes when a child turns 16, and when tailored advice from a family law specialist may help.
What Has Actually Been Announced?
On 15 June 2026 the government announced that social media companies will no longer be able to offer their services to children under 16. A further response published in July 2026 set out the next stage of the package. The restrictions sit alongside the Online Safety Act 2023, which already requires online services to assess and manage risks to children.
The rules will be introduced through secondary legislation, using powers already taken in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, rather than through a new Act. The government intends to lay the first set of regulations before Parliament by the end of 2026 and expects the restrictions to come into force in spring 2027. Until those regulations are made, the detail — including exactly which services are caught — can still change.
The stated aim of the social media ban is to protect children from harmful content — including self-harm material, pornography, violent content and cyberbullying — and to reduce the pull of feeds designed to keep young people scrolling. The announcement followed the “Growing Up in the Online World” consultation, which drew more than 116,000 responses. The government reported that nine in ten parents said they would support a ban for under-16s, and that two-thirds of young people who responded agreed under-16s should not be allowed to use at least some platforms.
Which Services Will Be Covered?
The ban focuses on the biggest social media platforms, not the entire internet. The government has said it plans to follow the Australian model, capturing user-to-user platforms whose purpose is to enable social interaction and which let users post material alongside algorithmic feeds. It has named Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X as examples.
Messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal are not intended to be included. The government has also said there will be a narrowly defined list of exemptions — so that educational services, e-commerce platforms and music streaming are not caught — and that this list will be kept under review.
Separately, and beyond social media, under-16s will be blocked from livestreaming themselves and from communicating with strangers across a wider range of services, including gaming. The government has said this will not stop children playing multiplayer games online.
For 16 and 17-year-olds, the July 2026 response confirmed default settings rather than a sudden cliff-edge at 16: access to social media restricted between midnight and 6am, push notifications muted during those hours, and autoplay and personalised feeds switched off at all times. Livestreaming and stranger communication will also be off by default. Young people will be able to turn these settings off themselves.
Because the final list of services will be fixed in regulations, it is worth checking GOV.UK for updates rather than relying on early reporting.
How Will The Social Media Ban Be Enforced, and What Is Age Assurance?
Ofcom will regulate and enforce the new rules, as it does the Online Safety Act. Social media companies will need to establish that a user is 16 or over before allowing access. The legal duty sits with the companies — not with parents, and not with children.
“Age assurance” covers the range of methods a service can use to establish a user’s age. Methods already in use across regulated services include facial age estimation, checks against official identity documents, third-party verification services, mobile network operator data and open banking checks. Ofcom has been asked to carry out a rapid assessment of what highly effective age assurance looks like for verifying whether someone is over 16, which the government said would be published in October 2026. Ofcom can already take enforcement action where companies fail their child-safety duties.
No age check is perfect. In the government’s consultation a majority of parents expected children to try to get around new age limits, and the research cited alongside it suggests the most common workarounds are simple ones — entering a false date of birth, or borrowing someone else’s account — rather than technical tools. There is also a risk that children move towards smaller, less regulated services that are harder for both regulators and parents to see.
On VPNs, the government has said it will not ban them or require age checks to use them. Instead it has asked Ofcom to research what more services can do to detect and reduce attempts to get around the rules, and has said it will publish practical guidance for parents on how tools such as VPNs work at household level.
Online Safety Risks: Why the Ban Is on the Table
Calls to restrict children’s social media use are a response to documented harms. The risk areas most often raised are exposure to self-harm and suicide content, pro-eating-disorder material, violent and sexual content, grooming and cyberbullying. Office for National Statistics figures for the year to March 2023 found that almost one in ten children aged 13 to 15 (9.5%) had received a sexual message in the previous year, and that of those who did, around four in five (78.9%) said the messages came through social media. The same survey found that around one in five children aged 10 to 15 (19.1%) had experienced at least one online bullying behaviour, with girls affected more often than boys.
NHS England’s 2023 survey of children and young people’s mental health found that 20.3% of eight to 16-year-olds had a probable mental disorder, compared with 12.1% of seven to 16-year-olds in 2017. How much of that change is attributable to social media is still debated, and the government has commissioned independent research into the effect of the new restrictions on young people’s mental health.
The government also ran short pilots with more than 300 families in 2026, testing daily app limits, removing social media apps altogether, and an overnight curfew from 9pm to 7am. Teenagers and parents reported improvements in sleep, mood, concentration and family time, and found the overnight curfew the most workable of the three. The research was qualitative and small in scale, so it points to a direction rather than proving an outcome.
There are serious counter-arguments. Critics point out that restrictions can limit chances to build digital skills, may make young people less willing to report problems, and can leave some children more isolated — particularly those who rely on online communities. The online world also involves subtler pressures: constant comparison with filtered lives, peer pressure, infinite scrolling, and feeling obliged to stay reachable around the clock.
Parenting in the Age of a Social Media Ban
The idea that “parents should just parent” is not a complete answer. Many parents feel unprepared to manage their children’s online safety. In the government’s consultation, 84% of respondents agreed that parents should have control over their children’s online experiences, and a majority of parents expected children to try to get around new age limits. Knowing what the apps your child wants to use actually do is the most useful place to start.
Australia, which introduced under-16 restrictions in December 2025, offers a useful early warning. Its online safety regulator’s three-month evaluation, published in July 2026, found that use of age-restricted platforms among 10 to 15-year-olds fell only slightly, from around 86% to around 82%, while the proportion holding accounts fell from around half to around four in ten. Children continued to reach content while logged out. The lesson other governments have drawn is that a minimum age reduces exposure at the margins, but does not on its own take children offline.
One change is already in force closer to home. The Department for Education’s guidance on mobile phones in schools became statutory on 29 June 2026, with schools expected to follow it from September 2026. School leaders decide how to achieve a phone-free day, and exceptions can be made for medical needs, special educational needs and disabilities, and individual safeguarding concerns. It is worth reading your child’s school policy, particularly if the two households have different rules at home.
Many parents already use time limits, parental settings, app-blocking and no-phones-in-bedrooms rules, and still struggle, because homework, hobbies and friendships are now woven through screens. A ban may reduce some risks while shifting the work of digital parenting elsewhere: filling the time that opens up, helping children keep in touch with friends another way, and holding boundaries when the child next door has a different set of rules.
Open conversation matters more than any setting. Children who feel able to tell an adult when something has gone wrong are safer than children following rules out of fear, and secrecy is the main risk of a rule a child does not accept. Talking about your own experience of phones and feeds — including the parts you find difficult — tends to keep those conversations open.
Parents of neurodivergent children or those with anxiety may face unique dilemmas, as online communities can both increase stress and provide vital support.
Parenting Across Two Households: When Parents Disagree
After separation, families often find that one household allows more than the other: one parent wants a strict ban, the other allows limited access, or the disagreement is about whether a child keeps a phone in their room overnight. Inconsistent rules can push a child towards secret accounts and can leave them feeling caught between two parents.
Most of these disagreements are resolved without going near a court. Where both parents have parental responsibility, significant decisions about a child are expected to be discussed and agreed between them, while day-to-day decisions are generally made by the parent caring for the child at the time. Screen rules usually fall into that second category, which is one reason courts rarely make orders about them.
If you cannot agree, the usual order of things is: talk directly; write the agreed rules into a parenting plan covering both homes; try mediation; and only then consider an application to the family court. Before applying for most orders about children you must attend a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting, known as a MIAM, unless an exemption applies. Exemptions include cases involving domestic abuse. Mediation is not appropriate where there has been abuse, and no one should feel pressured into it.
Where a court is asked to decide, the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration under section 1 of the Children Act 1989. The court works through the welfare checklist, which includes the child’s own wishes and feelings considered in light of their age and understanding, their physical, emotional and educational needs, any harm they have suffered or are at risk of suffering, and how capable each parent is of meeting their needs. The court will only make an order if doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all.
The orders most likely to be relevant to a dispute about apps or devices are a specific issue order or a prohibited steps order under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 — for example, where one parent believes the other’s approach is exposing the child to a real risk of harm. These are not a first step, and a court is unlikely to be drawn into routine parenting decisions.
Where a disagreement about screens is really part of a wider clash about a child’s care, it can help to speak to a family law specialist early — about mediation, about putting arrangements in writing, or about court-process support if matters have already reached that stage. Legal guidance is one tool for resolving entrenched disputes, not a first resort.
Practical Steps Parents Can Take Now to Keep Children Safe Online
Even before the social media ban comes into force, parents can significantly improve online safety. Parents must help children navigate online life safely by combining technical tools with open dialogue.
- Enable free parental controls from broadband and mobile providers
- Use device-level screen time tools and turn off autoplay and location sharing
- Set age-appropriate filters on app stores
- Agree family routines such as device-free meals and a set “offline” hour before bed
- Where you are co-parenting, agree one set of rules across both homes wherever you can, and write them into a parenting plan
- Know how to report a concern: call 999 if a child is in immediate danger, otherwise contact the police on 101 or your local authority’s children’s services. Your child’s school has a designated safeguarding lead you can speak to
Many children are adept at workarounds — private browsers, secondary email accounts, a friend’s login — so assume simple blocks can be bypassed. Rules a child has helped set tend to hold better than rules imposed on them. Regular, low-key conversations help: ask them to show you their favourite apps, talk about the people they follow, and agree what they will do if something they see frightens or upsets them.
If your child loses access to a platform they have used to stay in touch, help them find another way to keep those friendships going. The friendships matter more than the app.
Looking Beyond 16: Teaching Skills, Not Just Obedience
If social media is largely off-limits until 16, what happens the day a child turns 16 and can suddenly open an account almost anywhere? The government is trying to soften that cliff-edge with the default settings described above, but the rest of the preparation happens at home.
There is also a legal change at 16 that often surprises parents. Orders under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 — child arrangements, specific issue and prohibited steps orders — generally end when a child reaches 16, and the court will not usually make such an order in respect of a child who is already 16 or over unless the circumstances are exceptional. In practice, decisions about a 16 or 17-year-old’s online life are for the young person and their parents to work out.
A ban postpones the moment a young person has to learn to regulate their own use; it does not remove it. The long-term goal is judgement — helping young people build critical thinking and emotional resilience so they can handle online spaces when the restrictions no longer apply.
Parents can start now by talking through real news stories, discussing anonymity and digital footprints, and analysing how algorithms push certain content. For many teenagers, social media can later provide positive communities, activism, and role models across a wider range of interests. Propose marking the approach to 16 as a planning point: drafting together a “first year on social media” agreement covering which apps, daily time limits, privacy settings, and how to handle friendship drama played out online.
Final Thoughts
The social media ban and the wider Online Safety Act framework may reduce some online harms, but they cannot replace everyday parenting, digital education, and open family communication. Many parents are torn – they welcome stronger rules from tech giants, yet worry about isolation, secret accounts, and what happens at 16. There is no single right answer.
The safest young people are usually those who feel able to talk to a trusted adult about mistakes and worries online, not those obeying rules out of fear. For parents co-parenting across two households: get the facts early, talk directly to each other where it is safe to do so, and consider calm, child-focused guidance from a family law specialist if a disagreement is escalating. Protecting children online will remain a shared task for government, schools, platforms, parents and young people themselves, well beyond the start date of any ban.
How A Family Lawyer Can Provide Legal Assistance
A family lawyer can advise on the best legal option for your situation as well as provide you advice on guidance on the best way to navigate your matter. Contact Kabir Family Law today on 0330 094 5880 to arrange your free consultation or book a time that suits you. Our family lawyers in Coventry as well across York, Nottingham, Cardiff, Northampton, Oxford & London work around the clock and will be able to provide you with the advice and you need at a time to suit your needs.
FAQs: Social Media Ban
Does the social media ban mean my child cannot use the internet at all?
No. The proposed social media ban targets specific social media services and high-risk features, not the entire internet. Children should still be able to access educational websites, school platforms, streaming services, and age-appropriate apps. Messaging tools, gaming chats, and niche platforms may sit outside the strict “social media” definition, so parents still need to teach children about online safety more broadly.
Can my child still message friends?
Yes. The government has said messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal are not intended to be included in the ban, and has been explicit that children will still be able to use messaging services to stay in touch with family and friends.
Can I get into legal trouble if my under-16 child secretly uses social media?
The duties in the announced package fall on social media companies and other online services, and Ofcom is the regulator. The government has been clear that responsibility for compliance sits with platforms rather than with children. If you discover a secret account, the priority is a calm conversation: why they set it up, who they are talking to, and what to do next. Where there is any suspicion of grooming or exploitation, contact the police straight away — 999 in an emergency, otherwise 101 — or your local authority’s children’s services.
What if my co-parent refuses to follow the social media ban?
Disagreements over phones and social media are common after separation. The courts expect parents to try to resolve matters between themselves or through mediation first, and you will normally need to attend a MIAM before applying for an order unless an exemption applies. Share the GOV.UK guidance and your child’s school policy with the other parent and propose one consistent set of rules. If you believe the other parent’s approach is putting your child at real risk of harm, speak to a family law specialist about whether a specific issue or prohibited steps order is appropriate.
Will the ban change our existing child arrangements order?
No. The restrictions are duties on online services. They do not alter an existing order about where a child lives or spends time. If you want a specific screen-related term added to arrangements, that is a separate question and one worth taking tailored advice on.
Is the digital age of consent changing from 13 to 16?
Not at this stage. The government consulted on raising it and decided in July 2026 to keep the position under review while it assesses the effect of the social media restrictions.
How can I prepare my child now, before the ban starts?
Start age-appropriate conversations straight away about what content is acceptable, what to do if someone is unkind online, and why adults are worried about certain apps. Review devices together – checking privacy settings, location sharing, and who can send friend requests. Agree family routines like device-free meals so that when the law changes, children are used to healthy boundaries rather than experiencing a sudden clamp-down.
Where can I find reliable information about the social media ban and online safety?
The GOV.UK collection “Growing up in the online world” holds the announcement, the July 2026 government response and the fact sheet for parents, and is updated as decisions are made. Your child’s school will also share resources through newsletters and parents’ evenings. If online safety worries are part of a wider family difficulty, it may help to speak to a family law specialist who understands both the legal framework and the realities of parenting across two households.
