The UK is considering a cyber curfew! Planning to ban social media use for teenagers under 16, and prohibit AI companions for those under 18.

The UK government has announced plans to ban people under 16 from using social media, prohibit AI companion use for those under 18, and develop protective measures such as an “internet curfew.” The bill is expected to take effect as early as spring 2027.

UK plans to ban social media for under-16s

Yesterday (6/15), the UK government made a shocking announcement that it intends to prohibit social media platforms from providing services to teenagers under 16. Platforms targeted by the ban include Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), and Meta-owned Instagram and Facebook.

However, the government currently does not plan to include private messaging apps such as WhatsApp and Signal in the ban, nor does it include YouTube Kids—an app designed for children with parental controls. Most social media platforms’ current policies already require users to be at least 13 years old to create an account.

Before Christmas, the UK government is expected to submit the relevant bill to Parliament for review, and it hopes that each protective measure will formally take effect in spring 2027.

The UK is also drafting an “internet curfew”

To further protect children from online risks, the UK government will implement restrictions that are stricter than a full ban.

For users under 16, the UK government will block potentially harmful features such as live streaming and communication with strangers. This restriction will also cover related functions on gaming websites, but it will not affect children’s right to take part in online multiplayer games.

To avoid a regulatory gap when teenagers turn 16, for teenagers aged 16 to 17, restrictions on these high-risk features will be set to “enabled” by default. The UK government is also working on an online “curfew” for users under 18, as well as measures to pause endless scrolling and other actions; more details are expected to be announced in July.

In addition, for AI romantic companion chatbots that simulate relationships or role-play, the government also plans to require users to be at least 18 years old.

On the regulatory side, the government will introduce more efficient age-verification measures, and it will ask the UK communications regulator, Ofcom, to quickly research methods to determine whether users are over 16.

Parents overwhelmingly support, but teens are worried

In recent years, concerns about teenagers becoming addicted to social media, cyberbullying, and cases in which strangers contact minors through social media leading to sexual exploitation have surfaced frequently. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has also said that social media makes children unhappy, makes it easier for bullies to harass others, and may harm teenagers’ mental health.

He compared a social media ban to regulations banning the sale of alcohol to minors, emphasizing that even if teenagers find ways to obtain alcohol, society will still enact bans to establish values and norms.

Image source: Flickr. Open government license. Photo by Simon Dawson. The government led by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced plans to ban social media platforms from serving teenagers under 16.

It is claimed that this policy has strong support among parents. The UK government’s previous public consultation received more than 116,000 responses in total, and nine out of 10 parents said they support implementing a social media ban for children under 16.

According to BBC reporting, a father, Mariano Janin, who lost his daughter due to cyberbullying, also expressed support, calling it the right direction for regulation. However, some teenagers have voiced concerns, saying it could affect their ability to connect with friends and their space to express themselves.

Social media platforms push back—ban could push teens toward danger

The UK government’s proposed social media ban for teenagers immediately triggered backlash from major tech companies:

• A Meta spokesperson said that, based on Australia’s implementation experience, the ban could disconnect teenagers from online communities and information, forcing them to turn to alternative platforms lacking safety protections and parental controls, and not subject to regulation.
• YouTube also said in a statement that a full ban would push children toward anonymous and less secure online services.
• Snapchat also emphasized that most of the time on its platform is spent on private messages among friends, and that the ban may not make teens safer.

However, the industry is reportedly confused about how to effectively enforce the ban. Some in the industry initially thought Apple and Google would handle age checks at the app store level, but the current direction of the policy appears to be requiring individual social media platforms to take responsibility.

What worries groups focused on privacy rights or online freedom is that if the government implements strict age verification and requires internet users to hand over information such as identity documents, it could lead to the government using “protecting minors” as a pretext for surveillance, potentially putting online free speech at risk.

• Related report: Spain plans to ban social media for under 16s! TG founder criticizes: This is surveillance rather than protection.

Australia’s ban has been in place for half a year, but the results are not impressive

The UK government has clearly stated that the policy’s development will closely reference Australia’s existing model. Australia implemented a social media ban for children in December 2025, and the regulation covers 10 major social media platforms.

However, although issuing a ban is simple and direct, it is not a real cure-all for teenage social media addiction or other problems.

After more than half a year, Australia’s policy still faces many difficulties in enforcement. As many as 70% of parents told Australia’s online safety regulator that their children are still using these restricted platforms.

A BBC report prior to the ban also pointed out that just before Australia’s ban took effect, tens of thousands of users shifted to lesser-known alternative social platforms such as Lemon8, Yope, and Coverstar from China’s ByteDance. Downloads surged temporarily, but later fell back; downloads of Australian VPNs also rose before the ban and then returned to normal levels.

Image source: Lemon8. Lemon8, a platform under China’s ByteDance, once became an alternative platform for Australian teens for a time.

Regarding their experience one month after the ban, Australian teens gave mixed responses. Some said they felt “relieved,” while others said life “didn’t really change,” admitting that the amount of time they spend on social media is about the same as before the ban. In some cases, teens also openly admitted they avoided the restrictions by setting fake birthdays.

Age limits and social media bans are becoming a global trend

Although there are challenges in enforcing social media bans for teenagers, the global trend of imposing age restrictions on social media continues to expand.

At present, six countries have implemented social media age-restriction policies, including China, Brazil, Australia, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam. Data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) also shows that there are currently 25 countries that are implementing, have passed, or are actively considering laws imposing age restrictions for social media.

As for Taiwan, it has not yet introduced strict usage bans for teenagers. However, the Ministry of Health and Welfare recently previewed a draft amendment to the “Children and Youth Welfare and Rights Protection Act.” Attention has been drawn to Article 59, because it involves terms such as “age verification” and “restrict website access,” and it lacks clear definitions, leading to public concerns about whether Taiwan would follow the UK and China in building an internet Great Wall. For reference, see this detailed report: Ministry of Health and Welfare’s juvenile law amendment: a single clause referencing an “internet Great Wall” triggers panic, with legislators including Shen Boyang urgently intervening.