UK bans social media for kids under 16 — companies should do more!

Skip to content

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

For years, parents, researchers and child advocates have been sounding the alarm about social media and kids. Now, governments around the world are finally listening.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the United Kingdom will ban social media for children under 16, following Australia’s lead as one of the most aggressive efforts yet to limit young people’s access to platforms like TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, YouTube and X.

Ahead of Monday’s announcement, the U.S. warned the U.K. against using “prescribed one-size-fits-all government restrictions” and “blunt regulatory instruments” in a submission to a U.K. government consultation. When a reporter asked Starmer about the move potentially alienating Trump, he said, “There has always been a recognition that leaders have to take steps to protect children. I don’t think that’s controversial.”

And the U.K. isn’t alone. Australia moved first; countries like Indonesia and Malaysia have followed. Here in the United States, lawmakers have spent years proposing restrictions, age-verification requirements, parental consent laws, and limits on addictive algorithms aimed at children. But in America, many of those efforts have hit roadblocks in court.

Tech companies and their trade groups have challenged state laws across the country, arguing that restrictions on their platforms violate First Amendment protections. As a result, several laws designed to protect children have been delayed or blocked before they could even take effect.

Meanwhile, the evidence linking excessive social media use to negative outcomes for children keeps growing.

Research has found that adolescents who spend more than three hours a day on social media face roughly double the risk of experiencing symptoms of anxiety and depression. Experts have also linked excessive use to sleep disruption, body-image concerns, and the loss of critical face-to-face social development. According to the Pew Research Center, nearly half of U.S. teens say they are online “almost constantly.”

So if the risks are becoming clearer, why isn’t the solution? Because banning social media sounds a lot easier than enforcing it.

Australia offers a cautionary tale. Six months after becoming the first country to implement a nationwide social media ban for children under 16, many teenagers were reportedly still using the same platforms through fake birthdates, older siblings’ accounts, or other simple workarounds. The ban didn’t magically make social media disappear.

But something else happened.

Many parents said the law gave them something they didn’t have before: backup. It shifted the conversation. It made saying “no” easier. It challenged the assumption that every child should automatically be on social media by middle school.

I don’t think this can all fall on parents. Not every family has the luxury of hovering over a teenager’s shoulder every time they open an app. Some parents are working two jobs. Some are raising children alone. And some are simply up against an impossible challenge: trying to compete with platforms designed by some of the smartest engineers in the world to capture and keep a child’s attention. Personal responsibility matters. Parenting matters. But so does corporate responsibility.

Recent court cases suggest that accountability may finally be coming.

Juries have begun finding social media companies liable for addictive design features that keep young users scrolling longer. Lawsuits have accused platforms of knowingly using tools like infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications, and algorithmic amplification to maximize engagement, even as concerns mounted about the effects on children’s mental health.

While lawmakers battle through years of litigation and constitutional challenges, tech companies know exactly what concerns parents have. They know the research. They know the criticism. They know the risks. So they should not wait for a judge, a jury or a government mandate.

If these platforms can engineer sophisticated algorithms that predict what a teenager wants to watch next, they can certainly build stronger protections for kids.

The reality is that legislation is moving slowly. Court fights could take years. But children are growing up on these platforms right now. Whether you support an outright ban or not, one thing is becoming increasingly difficult to argue: the status quo isn’t working.

The conversation shouldn’t just be about what governments are willing to do. It should also be about what social media companies are willing to do when nobody is forcing them. Because protecting kids shouldn’t require a lawsuit.

Lindsey Granger is a NewsNation contributor and co-host of The Hill’s commentary show “Rising.” This column is an edited transcription of her on-air commentary.

Tags

Australia

Keir Starmer

Social media

United Kingdom

Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.