House of Lords votes to ban social media for Brits under 16
- Reference: 1769083925
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2026/01/22/house_of_lords_votes_to_ban_under_16_socmed/
- Source link:
On Wednesday evening, the Lords voted 261 to 150 in favor of [1]amending the children's wellbeing and schools bill to require social media services to introduce age checks to block under-16s from access within a year. It will also require the chief medical officers to publish advice for parents on children's use of social media.
Unless members of parliament vote to remove the amendment from the bill when it returns to the House of Commons, it will become law.
[2]
The government moved its position on Tuesday when it launched a [3]three-month consultation on keeping children safe online , which will consider banning under-16s from social media and raising the "digital age of consent," when children can give permission for their data to be used without parental consent, from 13 to 16.
[4]
[5]
"We will look closely at the experience in [6]Australia ," technology minister Liz Kendall [7]told the Commons .
According to [8]reports on Thursday, the government may make a further concession to encourage MPs to vote to remove the Lords amendment. This would involve the government amending a bill going through Parliament that would allow it to introduce a social media ban for the under-16s through secondary legislation rather than a new law, a much quicker process.
[9]
In a Lords debate before the vote, Conservative life peer Baron John Nash, a former education minister who introduced the amendment, said the last few years had seen massive increases in children's contact with mental health services, eating disorders among 17-19 year olds, disruptive behavior in schools, and sexual exploitation of children and teenagers.
[10]Reddit sues Australia to exempt itself from kids social media ban
[11]FTC tries to un-Zuck Meta's grip on the market by dragging it back to court
[12]OpenAI will try to guess your age before ChatGPT gets spicy
[13]Ofcom keeps X under the microscope despite Grok 'nudify' fix
[14]Tories vow to boot under-16s off social media and ban phones in schools
"We face nothing short of a societal catastrophe caused by the fact that so many of our children are addicted to social media," he [15]said .
Liberal Democrat life peer and former children's television presenter Baroness Floella Benjamin, who co-sponsored the amendment, said the government had moved its position in the wrong direction.
"There is no need for a consultation, which will cause even further delay. We have all the evidence we need; we have to stop this catastrophe now," she said.
Baroness Claire Fox, a non-affiliated life peer and director of the Academy of Ideas think-tank, spoke against a ban, noting that Lord Nash was blaming children's access to social media for a wide range of problems:
[16]
"At this rate, all that Parliament would have to do is ban the internet for everyone and all problems would be solved," she said. "There is a danger of looking for easy answers and scapegoating social media for all society's ills."
The civil liberties-focused Open Rights Group also [17]argued against a ban , saying it would require widespread use of age-verification across the internet. ®
Get our [18]Tech Resources
[1] https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3909/stages/20215/amendments/10031850
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aXJXwRS2mA8mNB1FVvAzOgAAAoc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/19/uk_social_media_children_ban_prime_minister/
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aXJXwRS2mA8mNB1FVvAzOgAAAoc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aXJXwRS2mA8mNB1FVvAzOgAAAoc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2025/12/09/australian_social_media_ban/
[7] https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/secretary-of-state-statement-to-the-house-of-commons-20-january
[8] https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/starmer-concession-lords-social-media-ban-6fhg632rg
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aXJXwRS2mA8mNB1FVvAzOgAAAoc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2025/12/12/reddit_sues_australia_social_ban/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/21/ftc_to_drag_meta_back/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/21/openai_bets_on_age_prediction/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/15/ofcom_grok_probe/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/12/conservatives_social_media_ban/
[15] https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2026-01-21/debates/FDF32A4B-6004-4C08-8995-EB06C45C0B65/Children%E2%80%99SWellbeingAndSchoolsBill
[16] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aXJXwRS2mA8mNB1FVvAzOgAAAoc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/21/uk_social_media_ban/
[18] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Just look at how effective the bans on pr0n, cigarettes & alcohol are.
Doesn't really affect the 5 to 10 year old age group.
Who aren't affected by this bill anyway. They're already not allowed to have social media accounts and will continue to be so.
Ban the cigarettes, but leave them access to the ice-cream and figurines of the Virgin Mary!
@Paul Herber
Upvote for the KC reference
I think this is a classic case of governments thinking they can dictate reality!
While social media certainly is toxic and a case can be made for keeping kids off it, it's only really the parents who can do this. Legislating to ban it will be pointless as the kids will rapidly find workarounds (e.g. VPNs), and it will descend into a debate over 'what counts as social media', with the kids being three steps ahead of the legislators.
What this government (and previous ones for several decades) don't seem to realise is that by legislating for everything they can think of, creating laws which cannot be meaningfully enforced, and bringing in specific laws (to be seen to be "doing something") for very specific things which can already be dealt with under existing laws but aren't, they are just constantly reducing the respect for law among the general public, whose response is now often along the lines of 'just another pointless law which they can't / won't enforce and which can be ignored'.
only the parents
Another report this morning claimed that a substantial minority of children arrive at school not toilet trained, and/or not knowing what "books" are for.
I'm not sure you can expect much from that sort of parent.
Re: only the parents
Sure, there are some very bad parents, but it remains the case that only parents can meaningfully restrict social media use - the kids will just work their way around government 'bans'.
Re: only the parents
the kids will just work their way around government 'bans'.
This is good. Then kids can show us oldies how to do this. Especially when..
The civil liberties-focused Open Rights Group also argued against a ban, saying it would require widespread use of age-verification across the internet.
The ORG sounds suprised at yet another bit of creeping compulsion. First prime the pump with age-verification for pron, then expand it to age-verification for anti-social media, and then because everyone will be socially conditioned to accept it, dust off the Digital IDiot plans again. Then if you call Starmer a muppet, he'll know and a fine can be automatically issued.
Cynical oldies might just wonder how it is kids get mobile phones when they can't sign contracts for them. And they shouldn't be able to buy stuff off mobile app stores. So perhaps the problem is closer to home and a solution might just be to have locked down kidphones that don't have or allow abuse-friendly apps like Snapchat. Parents can give their kids a good'ol Nokia 3110 with less fear of breakage. Both for the phone, and the kid not walking under a bus while distracted by their iPhones.
In the olden days
The House of Lords was a bunch of out-of-touch inherited people with a long-term view, doing things like declaring there shouldn't be anything illegal about being gay or that slavery was not supported by English law. It's repeatedly knocked back surveillance proposals. It wasn't perfect, but it was a far more reliable supporter of sense than the vote-hungry politicians.
In the modern era, of course, the Commons has pushed ever more political appointees, mates of MPs, Party members, etc into the chamber. All in the name of jealousy politics. It's become another cesspit of people who won the popularity contest and are guaranteed to have a strong political allegiance to Party politics.
The result is we've just destroyed what was a fantastic bit of governmental oversight.
Re: In the olden days
The Snapchat Influencers Party disagrees with you.
Wouldn't it just be easier to ban Under-16s ?
Pesky kids won't allow you to get away with that!
Not only easier but it would also solve a whole lot of other problems over the next 50ish years. And then, finally, those bloody isles can be repopulated with reasonable people and there will be no one left to complain about immigration.
Or did I misunderstand your comment?
Thinking of the adults
When this legislation is enacted, perhaps attention could turn from 'think of the children' to 'think of adults'.
Nowadays, a larger element of youth than hitherto run wild.
"The civil liberties-focused Open Rights Group also argued against a ban, saying it would require widespread use of age-verification across the internet."
This is the whole point. Goverments don't give a monkey's left testicle about kids, screen time adiction, resultant lack of face to face socialisation skills etc.
Goverments do care about accurately de-anonomising every social media account.
Which is what this will do.
why not...
Just ban the social media entities?
Seems they are a magnet of criminality e.g. theft of personal data, bullying, scams, time-wasting, inappropriate influencers
We would be able to play Snake or Quake in peace (pieces?)
Re: We would be able to play Snake or Quake in peace
I know you were using the Joke icon but, seriously, that sounds great to this old git!
An analogy is swimming
Swimming can be dangerous, which is why we teach children to swim safely.
Once they can swim they may go to dangerous places, such as rivers with strong currents or quarries with deep water. We put up warning signs - i.e. ban them - but also educate as to why the ban is there.
They may also try and swim in rivers polluted with sewage - we don't ban them from this, instead we prosecute those responsible for the pollution.
Social media is very much the latter: it's currently polluted with electronic sewage and legislation should be aimed at forcing the providers to clean it up.
Banning children from using social media seems a bit close to victim blaming.
Not a good idea
Banning kids from doing things is an excellent way of teaching them how to hide, obfuscate and lie effectively.
What is the definition of Social Media that is currently being worked to?
For example: https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/digital-services-tax/dst14200
"The social media definition focuses on two key aspects of user participation. An online service will meet the definition when both of the following conditions are met:
The main purpose, or one of the main purposes, of the service is to promote interaction between users (including interaction between users and user-generated content).
Making content generated by users available to other users is a significant feature of the service"
Read it broadly and it covers SMS, MMS, RCP, as well as your usual Whatsapps, Instacrack, TikSlop.
Make the Parents responsible for controlling access to anti-Social Media?
I nearly swallowed my pen when I read that in one of the comments. Are these the same parents who have no idea how their phone/tablet/PC works and have to get their 10 year old to fix it for them, and yes THAT is the majority amongst non-Techie parents? And that is for parents who actually care about their kids (which to be fair is most of them), but there are plenty of parents who just don't give a crap and see the inevitable results of their bareback shagging as an inconvenience and a resource drain, so they are never going to spend any time with their kids, let alone educate them or read to them, and they all expect the school system to do their job for them.
introduce age checks to block under-16s from access within a year
introduce age check verification on all adults to check access ....
No more anonymous access to social media.
FTFY
Are they serious ?
Quick litmus test, Does this wordfest have any penalties for adults who assist a minor in the circumvention of a regulatory check ?
No.
It's a bunch of crap.
(Weirdly I didn't even need to check) ....
I sometimes wonder if it would be better to turn it around - banning adults from Social Media might be a better way of protecting children.
This ban will obviously work as intended and keep the youngsters off the net.