These are the countries moving to ban social media for children

Over recent months, a significant global shift has emerged as numerous countries announce and implement plans to restrict social media access for children and teenagers. This concerted effort underscores a growing international concern regarding the pervasive influence of digital platforms on young minds and development. Australia, in a landmark move at the close of 2025, became the first nation to enforce such comprehensive measures, thereby establishing a precedent that is now being closely scrutinized and emulated by governments worldwide. France has recently joined this expanding list, signaling a broad consensus among policymakers to tackle the perceived harms of unregulated online engagement for youth.

The regulations and legislative proposals being advanced globally are primarily designed to mitigate the intense pressures and inherent risks that young users frequently encounter on social media platforms. These risks span a wide spectrum, including the insidious effects of cyberbullying, the increasingly recognized challenge of digital addiction, a documented rise in mental health issues such as anxiety and depression, and the grave danger of exposure to predators or inappropriate content. The impetus for these actions stems from a mounting body of research and anecdotal evidence suggesting a detrimental impact of excessive or unsupervised social media use on the well-being and cognitive development of minors.

However, this global regulatory push is not without its complexities and critics. Significant concerns have been raised regarding the privacy implications of invasive age verification technologies, which are often deemed necessary to enforce such bans. Civil liberties advocates and digital rights organizations, including Amnesty Tech, have voiced strong reservations, arguing that blanket bans may be ineffective, easily circumvented, and ultimately fail to address the underlying issues of online harm. Critics contend that these measures often overlook the realities of younger generations, for whom digital platforms are integral to communication, learning, and identity formation. Despite these objections, a considerable number of nations are pressing ahead with proposed legislation, signaling a determination to prioritize child protection in the digital realm.

This article compiles a detailed overview of countries that are actively considering, or have already moved forward with, legislation to restrict social media access for young users, alongside an analysis of the broader context, challenges, and implications of this evolving policy landscape.

The Precedent Set: Australia’s Pioneering Ban

Australia initiated this global movement by becoming the first country to impose a nationwide ban on social media for children under the age of 16 in December 2025. The legislation specifically targets a wide array of popular platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube (main platform), Reddit, Twitch, and Kick. Notably, the ban does not extend to messaging services like WhatsApp or curated platforms such as YouTube Kids, indicating a focus on open-ended social networking environments rather than all digital communication or content consumption.

The Australian government’s rationale for this bold step centers on safeguarding children from the psychological and developmental harms associated with early and extensive exposure to social media. They have explicitly mandated that social media companies must implement robust measures to prevent individuals under 16 from accessing their services. Non-compliance carries severe financial penalties, with fines potentially reaching up to AUD 49.5 million (approximately USD 34.4 million), underscoring the government’s commitment to strict enforcement. Authorities have emphasized that platforms cannot merely rely on users self-declaring their age but must deploy multiple, verifiable methods to ascertain a user’s true age, pushing the boundaries of age assurance technology. This move has ignited a global debate on the feasibility and ethics of such comprehensive digital age gates.

A Growing Wave of International Legislation and Proposals

Following Australia’s lead, a diverse range of countries across different continents have either enacted laws or are in advanced stages of drafting legislation to restrict social media access for minors. This surge reflects a shared concern among governments about the digital well-being of their youth.

• Austria: In late March, Austria announced its intention to ban social media for children up to the age of 14. Draft legislation for this measure is anticipated to be finalized by June, indicating a rapid legislative timeline. The Austrian government’s move aligns with a broader European trend of increased digital regulation.

• Canada: The Canadian government introduced a comprehensive digital safety bill in early June, which includes provisions for banning social media for children under 16. A unique aspect of the Canadian proposal is a potential carve-out: social media giants could circumvent the ban if they can demonstrably prove they have robust policies and mechanisms in place to effectively protect young users. Officials have projected that the bill could take approximately a year to pass through the parliamentary process, allowing for extensive debate and potential amendments.

• Denmark: Denmark is poised to ban social media platforms for children under 15, with significant political backing. In November 2025, the Danish government successfully secured cross-party support for the ban, encompassing three governing coalition parties and two opposition parties in parliament. This broad consensus suggests a strong likelihood of the plans becoming law by mid-2026. Complementing the legislative effort, the Danish digital affairs ministry is also developing a "digital evidence" app, designed to incorporate age verification tools that could play a crucial role in the ban’s enforcement.

• France: Demonstrating a swift legislative response, France passed a law on July 21 banning social media access for anyone under 15. This legislation is expected to take effect as early as September 1, making France one of the quickest nations to move from proposal to implementation. In addition to social media restrictions, the French law extends the existing ban on cellphones in primary and middle schools to include high schools, reflecting a comprehensive approach to managing digital device use among students.

• Germany: In early February, discussions within Germany’s conservative political bloc, led by Chancellor Friedrich Merz, explored a proposal to bar children under 16 from using social media. However, initial reports indicated hesitation from his center-left coalition partners, suggesting that an outright ban might face significant political hurdles and potentially evolve into a more nuanced regulatory framework.

• Greece: Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis announced in April that the country would ban social media access for children under 15, with an implementation target of January 2027. Mitsotakis explicitly linked this policy to tackling the rising prevalence of anxiety and sleep problems among children, as well as addressing the inherently addictive design of many social media platforms.

• Indonesia: In early March, Indonesia declared its intention to ban children under the age of 16 from using social media and other popular online platforms. The country plans to target a broad spectrum of services, including YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, Bigo Live, and Roblox, indicating a comprehensive approach to shielding its youth from perceived online harms.

• Malaysia: The Malaysian government announced in November 2025 its plans to implement a social media ban for children under 16, with an expected rollout within the current year. This initiative reflects a growing regional trend in Southeast Asia to impose stricter controls on digital platforms for minors.

• Poland: Poland’s ruling party is actively drafting new legislation that would prohibit children under 15 from using social media, as reported in February. This move positions Poland among the European nations challenging the traditional free-access model of US-based tech companies.

• Slovenia: Slovenia’s deputy prime minister announced in early February that the country is drafting legislation to prohibit children under 15 from accessing social media. The government’s focus is on regulating social networks where content sharing is central, specifically mentioning platforms like TikTok, Snapchat, and Instagram as primary targets.

• Spain: Spain’s prime minister announced in early February plans to ban social media for children under the age of 16, though this still requires parliamentary approval. In a related and significant move, the Spanish government is also working on a law that would hold social media executives personally accountable for illegal or hateful content disseminated on their platforms, adding another layer of responsibility for tech companies.

• Turkey: In April, the Turkish parliament passed a bill aimed at restricting social media access for children under 15. The legislation now awaits the acceptance of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to officially pass into law, signaling a strong political will to implement these controls.

• United Kingdom: UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced on June 15 that his government intends to impose a ban on social media use for children under 16. This ban would apply to major platforms such as Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and X. Similar to other nations, messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal would be excluded. The UK’s proposal also includes limitations on AI tools, specifically mandating that AI "romantic companion" chatbots must ensure they are only accessible to individuals over 18. While experts have questioned the effectiveness of a blanket ban, Starmer has acknowledged the challenges but expressed confidence in its enforceability, projecting a potential implementation by spring 2027.

The Underpinnings: Health Concerns and Supporting Data

The driving force behind these legislative efforts is a growing body of scientific evidence and public health advisories highlighting the detrimental effects of early and extensive social media use on young people. Numerous studies and reports from health organizations globally, including the US Surgeon General’s Advisory, the American Psychological Association (APA), and UNICEF, have pointed to a strong correlation between social media use and a rise in mental health issues among adolescents. These include increased rates of anxiety, depression, body image issues, cyberbullying victimization, sleep disturbances, and a diminished sense of self-worth.

Data indicates that children and adolescents are spending unprecedented amounts of time online. For instance, reports suggest that teenagers spend an average of several hours daily on social media, often without adequate parental supervision or critical digital literacy skills. This constant connectivity can disrupt crucial developmental processes, replacing face-to-face interactions, physical activity, and sufficient sleep, all of which are vital for healthy growth. The addictive algorithms employed by these platforms are also a significant concern, designed to maximize engagement, potentially leading to compulsive use and withdrawal symptoms when access is restricted. Governments are increasingly framing these bans as a public health imperative, akin to regulations on tobacco or alcohol, aimed at protecting a vulnerable population.

The Enforcement Challenge: Age Verification Technology

A critical and highly contentious aspect of these bans is the challenge of age verification. Governments are demanding that social media companies move beyond simple self-declaration, which is notoriously unreliable. However, implementing robust age assurance technologies presents significant technical hurdles and raises profound privacy concerns.

Various methods are being explored or proposed:

• AI-powered Facial Recognition: This involves analyzing facial features to estimate age. While increasingly sophisticated, it raises concerns about data privacy, bias, and the potential for surveillance.
• Third-party Verification Services: Users might be required to verify their age through a trusted third party, often involving government-issued IDs or biometric data. This could create a centralized database of age-verified individuals, leading to concerns about data security and potential misuse.
• Financial Data: Some proposals involve linking age verification to payment methods, though this is less feasible for younger users who typically do not have their own credit cards.
• Parental Consent and Verification: Requiring parental consent, often verified through a credit card or ID, is another approach, but it can be cumbersome and may not prevent older siblings or friends from assisting minors in creating accounts.

Critics argue that any invasive age verification system could lead to a significant erosion of privacy for all internet users, not just minors. Furthermore, concerns exist about the accuracy of these technologies and the potential for creating a "digital divide" where children from lower socio-economic backgrounds or those without access to necessary verification documents are excluded from online spaces. The effectiveness of these measures is also questioned, as tech-savvy minors may find ways to circumvent restrictions through VPNs, fake IDs, or by using older family members’ accounts.

Industry Responses and Advocacy Concerns

The response from social media companies has been varied. While many publicly express a commitment to child safety and compliance with local regulations, there are underlying concerns about the feasibility, cost, and potential impact on their user base and business models. Some platforms have already implemented or are exploring enhanced parental controls and age-gating mechanisms. However, the comprehensive nature of the proposed bans, requiring verifiable age assurance, represents a significant shift from their current practices. Companies face the dilemma of investing heavily in complex verification systems while simultaneously trying to retain young users, who represent a crucial demographic for future growth.

Advocacy groups and civil liberties organizations have been vocal critics of the blanket ban approach. Amnesty Tech, for instance, argues that such bans are often an "ineffective quick fix" that fails to address the root causes of online harm. They contend that outright prohibitions can infringe on children’s rights to freedom of expression and access to information, as well as their right to associate and participate in public life. Instead, these groups advocate for a multi-faceted approach focusing on:

• Digital Literacy Education: Equipping children with the skills to navigate online spaces safely and critically.
• Stronger Content Moderation: Holding platforms accountable for removing harmful content more effectively.
• Privacy-by-Design: Mandating that platforms are built with children’s privacy and safety as default settings.
• Empowerment: Teaching children how to report abuse, block users, and manage their digital footprint.
• Parental Engagement: Providing resources and tools for parents to guide their children’s online experiences.

Critics also highlight the potential for bans to push children towards less regulated, "darker" corners of the internet, where they might be even more vulnerable without the limited protections offered by mainstream platforms.

Broader Implications and Future Outlook

The global push for social media bans on minors carries profound implications for the future of the internet, digital rights, and the relationship between technology companies and nation-states.

• Fragmented Internet: If more countries adopt varying age restrictions and enforcement methods, it could lead to a more fragmented internet experience, where access to global platforms differs significantly based on geographical location and age.
• New Global Norms: Conversely, if a critical mass of countries successfully implements and enforces these bans, it could establish a new global standard for child online safety, compelling tech companies to universally adopt more stringent age verification and protection measures.
• Economic Impact: Social media companies could face substantial revenue losses from a decrease in younger users and increased compliance costs associated with developing and maintaining age verification systems. This could also influence product development, potentially leading to more age-appropriate or segregated platforms.
• Innovation in Age Tech: The demand for robust age verification will undoubtedly spur innovation in "age tech," potentially leading to new, less invasive, and more accurate methods of age assurance. However, the balance between innovation and privacy will remain a delicate challenge.
• Evolving Digital Childhood: These bans will force a re-evaluation of what constitutes a "digital childhood." It could lead to a generation of young people who experience a different online landscape than their predecessors, potentially fostering more offline activities or alternative digital engagements.
• Parental Responsibility: While governments are taking legislative action, the ultimate responsibility for guiding children’s digital lives will continue to rest with parents and guardians. The bans may provide a legal framework, but effective enforcement will require ongoing parental vigilance and digital education within families.

As more nations move forward with these groundbreaking regulations, the coming years will be crucial in determining their effectiveness, their impact on youth development, the evolution of digital privacy, and the future shape of the global internet. The debate between child protection and digital rights, state intervention and personal autonomy, will continue to define this rapidly evolving landscape.

This story was originally published in February 2026 and is updated regularly with new information. When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.