Would a Social Media Ban for Under-16s Be Lawful in the UK?

The Government has announced its intention to prohibit children under the age of 16 from accessing social media. The stated objective is straightforward and important: protecting children from online harms and allowing them to enjoy their childhood without the pressures which can accompany social-media use.

There is plainly a substantial body of evidence and public opinion supporting greater protection for children online. The legal question is a different one. Would a blanket prohibition on access to social media by under-16s be compatible with the rights protected by the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights?

That question has acquired particular significance following a decision of the French Constitutional Council on 14 August 2026 striking down France’s proposed prohibition on social-media access for children under 15.

The proposed UK scheme

On 15 June 2026, the Prime Minister announced that the Government would ban access to social media for children under 16. He expressly acknowledged that social media can bring benefits to young people but concluded that a full ban was nevertheless the right policy choice.

The proposal followed the Government’s Growing up in the online world consultation. The present intention is for restrictions to be introduced through regulations under the Online Safety Act 2023, as amended by the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026. The regulations will require parliamentary approval.

Much of the detail therefore remains important. The precise services caught, the extent to which children may continue to view material without holding accounts, any exemptions, the role of parental consent and the system of age assurance may all affect the human-rights analysis.

Children have Convention rights

The starting point is sometimes overlooked. Convention rights are not acquired on a person’s eighteenth birthday. Children enjoy them too.

A social-media prohibition potentially engages several rights, but Article 10 ECHR is likely to be central.

Article 10 protects freedom of expression. Importantly, that includes not merely the right to speak but the freedom to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority.

The European Court of Human Rights has already recognised the importance of internet platforms in this context.

In Cengiz and Others v Turkey (Applications nos. 48226/10 and 14027/11), the Court considered the wholesale blocking of YouTube. It recognised YouTube as an important means of exercising the freedom to receive and impart information and ideas, including political and social information, and held that the blocking measure interfered with Article 10.

That case is obviously very different factually from legislation designed specifically to protect children. It nevertheless establishes an important starting point: access to an internet communications platform can fall squarely within Article 10.

Interference does not necessarily mean unlawfulness

The engagement of Article 10 would not itself render an under-16 ban unlawful.

Article 10 is a qualified right. Interference can be justified where it is prescribed by law, pursues a legitimate aim and is necessary in a democratic society.

Protecting the health, safety and welfare of children is plainly capable of constituting a powerful legitimate aim.

The real legal issue is therefore likely to be proportionality.

A court considering proportionality would not simply be asked whether social media can harm children. The relevant question would be whether the particular restriction selected by the Government goes further than is reasonably necessary to achieve the legitimate objective.

That may require consideration of matters such as:

• whether the prohibition applies indiscriminately to all children from early childhood until their sixteenth birthday;
• whether sufficient distinction is made between different types of platform and different levels of risk;
• whether passive access to educational, political, cultural or other material is treated differently from active participation;
• whether parental consent has any role;
• whether less restrictive measures could adequately address the identified harms; and
• what safeguards accompany the age-verification system.

The answers will depend upon the regulations ultimately placed before Parliament.

The French decision

The issue is no longer entirely hypothetical in Europe.

On 14 August 2026, the French Constitutional Council considered legislation which would have prevented children under 15 from accessing social-media services.

The Council accepted the legitimacy of protecting children against the risks associated with social media. Nevertheless, it held that the measures disproportionately interfered with freedom of expression and communication.

It was significant that the prohibition was extremely broad. It applied irrespective of differences between platforms and without sufficient differentiation according to the risks presented. The Council also identified a separate difficulty concerning privacy and the age-verification arrangements necessary to operate the prohibition.

The French decision does not determine the position under English law. The Constitutional Council was applying French constitutional law rather than the Human Rights Act and ECHR, and the UK scheme may ultimately be drafted differently.

It is nevertheless an interesting comparator because the underlying proportionality exercise is recognisable to a UK public lawyer: a legitimate and important objective does not, without more, establish that the means chosen to achieve it are proportionate.

Privacy and age verification

There is a second potential Convention issue.

For a social-media company to exclude everybody under 16, it must have a sufficiently reliable means of distinguishing a 15-year-old from a 16-year-old — and potentially of distinguishing both from an adult.

Age-assurance technology can therefore engage Article 8 ECHR, which protects private life.

Again, engagement of Article 8 does not make age verification unlawful. Age assurance is already a feature of the UK’s online-safety regime.

The question will be whether the particular mechanism contains adequate safeguards and whether the collection or processing of information is proportionate to the objective pursued.

This was a separate concern identified by the French Constitutional Council.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

There is also a wider children’s-rights dimension.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child recognises children’s freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas. In its General Comment No. 25 on children’s rights in the digital environment, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child specifically recognised the importance of children’s access to information online.

The Committee has also stated that restrictions on children’s freedom of expression in the digital environment should be lawful, necessary and proportionate.

The Convention does not operate in domestic law in precisely the same manner as Convention rights incorporated through the Human Rights Act. It nevertheless provides relevant international context when considering the rights and evolving capacities of children in the digital environment.

Parliament will have to confront the issue

There is an important procedural point.

When legislation is brought forward, human-rights compatibility cannot simply be ignored. Government legislation is ordinarily accompanied by consideration of its compatibility with Convention rights, and section 19 of the Human Rights Act requires the responsible Minister to make the appropriate statement concerning compatibility.

Government guidance on preparing legislation specifically provides that, where Convention rights are engaged, the explanatory material should address the relevant case law and explain why an interference is justified and proportionate.

The eventual human-rights analysis of the social-media restrictions may therefore be particularly interesting.

Could a UK ban survive a challenge?

It would be premature to conclude that an under-16 social-media ban would either necessarily comply with, or necessarily breach, the Convention.

Much will turn on its detailed design.

There is an obvious and substantial public interest in protecting children from harmful content, addictive platform design, online abuse and inappropriate contact. The state also enjoys a degree of latitude when deciding how best to protect children.

On the other hand, a measure preventing an entire age group from accessing important means of communication and receiving information necessarily raises questions under Article 10. If universal age verification is required, Article 8 considerations may arise as well.

The legal question is therefore narrower than the political debate about whether social media is good or bad for children.

It is this:

Can a blanket age-based prohibition be shown to be a necessary and proportionate means of protecting children when compared with less restrictive alternatives?

The French Constitutional Council has recently answered that question in the negative in relation to the legislation before it.

A UK court would be considering a different statutory scheme under a different legal framework. It may reach a different conclusion.

But once the detailed UK regulations are published, their compatibility with Articles 8 and 10 ECHR is likely to merit careful scrutiny.

---

This article is intended as a general discussion of legal issues and does not constitute legal advice.