Keir Starmer’s Labour government has announced a ban on social media services being offered to under 16 year-olds in the nation.
The landmark announcement, which will come into being in 2027, is a landmark decision aimed at protecting young people online and follows a similar ban by Australia.
The implications are likely to be far reaching and brands, ad technology leaders and ad agencies will all likely be affected by the decision.
So we’ve been out asking for initial reactions and comments from around the industry…
Abraham Charles, CEO & Founder, each&everyone
“The under 16 social media ban prompts a rethink across influencer and social media marketing, but also an opportunity for the industry to mature.
“Younger users are the future customer base for brands and platforms alike, so restrictions will require both to redesign how they acquire new audiences and retain a diminishing pool of existing users.
For brands, influencer selection is likely to become more nuanced. Partnerships that have historically relied on creators with large under 16 followings will need to be reassessed against new measures of success.
“This doesn’t mean they should be abandoned, however. We can expect younger audience behaviour to shift towards private messaging platforms, gaming environments and other digital spaces, meaning brands and creators will need to adapt their channel strategies accordingly.
“Perhaps the biggest impact will be on governance and accountability. Compliance, transparency and responsible data practices will be placed under even more scrutiny – a positive development for the sector.
“Greater guardrails will help accelerate the professionalism of influencer marketing and build stronger trust between brands, platforms, creators and consumers.
“Rather than something to fear, this is an opportunity for influencer marketing to adopt more sustainable strategies built around audiences that are verified and commercially engaged.”
Oscar Mackenzie, Director of Social & Influencer, Jungle Creations
“These plans feel like the next logical step in a conversation that has been building steam for years.
“Concerns around online safety, mental wellbeing and age-appropriate experiences have steadily moved from the fringes into the mainstream, making some form of policy intervention increasingly inevitable.
“We’ve already seen governments around the world, most notably Australia, take a more interventionist approach, while schools across the UK have introduced phone-free policies and restrictions during the school day.
“The shifts reflect a growing societal consensus that children need greater protections online, and that responsibilities should lie at a state level.
“The challenge now will be implementation. Any new restrictions must strike the right balance between safeguarding young people and recognising that social media also plays a crucial role in connection and self-expression for young people.
“The effectiveness of any policy will ultimately depend on how clearly it can be enforced and adopted by platforms, parents and young people alike.”
Barney Worfolk-Smith, Chief Growth Officer, DAIVID
“Upfront, I’m 100% behind this move. Policy-wise, there has to be a stake in the ground and this is a meaningful start. The Aussie 2025 rollout was a bit messy but instructive, with many accounts deleted but also widely reported workarounds.
“But this isn’t just about social policy. Less discussed is the impact on advertising. Platforms earned $11bn in ads targeting minors in 2023, and that number will fall.
“But this doesn’t just shrink reach. It affects the engagement signals that algorithmically-driven ads run on.
“The real disruption for advertisers isn’t losing the audience, it’s losing the data feedback loop that trains the whole system.”
Rob Blake, MD EMEA, Channel Factory
“Social platforms are the digital equivalent to public squares – anyone with an internet connection can voice their opinion. But it’s not just the platforms that need to take a responsible role towards under-16s but also the people creating content, and advertising on them.
“UK advertisers now spend 11.5 billion pounds annually on social media – a figure that grew 21% last year alone. Brands are therefore not passive participants in these spaces where young people consume content.
“The policy question should not simply be whether social media is harmful to young people, but why certain environments become harmful in the first place. Research indicates that teenagers spending more than three hours a day on social platforms face significantly higher risks of anxiety and depression.
Yet the advertising industry continues to focus on being brand ‘safe’ (ensuring ads do not appear next to inappropriate content), rather than on whether advertising supports environments that are suitable.
“Advertisers have both the data and the influence to prioritise content that meets higher standards, including environments that promote positive and age-appropriate experiences. Doing so does not require sacrificing the performance of their ad spend; it requires redefining how success is measured.”
Adam Shallcross, CEO and Founder, Cogworks
“As someone with a 16-year-old daughter, it’s welcome that the government is bringing in legislation around social media usage. Previously, before she took on her GCSEs, I would have said I agreed 100%.
“But recently, the content she has been using for revision on platforms like TikTok and YouTube has been really useful. I must admit I hadn’t really taken that into account in my previous thoughts on social media usage.
“Historically, I would have agreed with a blanket ban for all under 16s, but I can now see that a one-size-fits-all approach probably won’t work and will be detrimental in some use cases”
Paul Bainsfair, Director General, IPA
“To the extent such a measure will affect advertising to under-16s on social media, the UK is already subject to extensive and robust regulation under the CAP Code, with strict rules on content, targeting and placement across all media, including online.
“In our assessment, the primary challenge is not simply whether young people can access platforms, but how those platforms are structured, supervised and held to account.”
Sarah Cutler, Head of Growth, makemepulse
“I think many parents who have been preparing for this moment breathed a collective sigh of relief.
“It’s not perfect. Teenagers will always find ways around rules. I drank enough Smirnoff Ice and Bacardi Breezers before I was 18 to know that. But the point isn’t to eliminate every risk. It’s to set a boundary.
“As a parent of a nine-year-old and a five-year-old, what worries me isn’t the internet itself, it’s the algorithm. My children will still have access to technology, education, entertainment and creativity online.
“It increasingly feels like childhood is speeding up. I’ve walked around Space NK with my daughter and her friends and listened to conversations about skincare ingredients that seem more ingrained in their brains than their 7 times table.
“Of course this creates a shift for brands and advertisers. But that’s not really the most important conversation. Great brands built communities long before social media, and they’ll continue to do so in new ways.
“The bigger question is what kind of digital environment we want to create for children. Anything that gives them a little more childhood, and parents a little more support, feels like a step in the right direction.”
Richard Brooks, Founder and Director, Kinase
“I broadly support the principle, but…I don’t think it’ll work. People will find ways around it.
“It’s not really about ads, but protecting them from the many harms of social media. Advertisers will just have to find other ways to reach them. We currently have a World Cup that is plastered in ads for fast food and gambling which kids will see still.
“Next up – can we do something about the promotion of hate speech and riots please?”
Tim Mitchell, CEO, CreatorOS
“As a parent of young kids, I think this is a really positive step. People are starting to recognise the real issue: these algorithms are designed to be addictive by design. They keep users hooked by serving up content people want to watch, regardless of whether it’s harmful or just an innocent video.
“Creators in our WhatsApp community poll were overwhelmingly in favour of the ban. This should in theory bring real reassurance to creators and brands that the content they’re putting out simply shouldn’t be reaching children, who were never part of the intended audience.
“That said, brands still have a role to play in pressuring platforms to flag and remove harmful content, and this ban shouldn’t be treated as an excuse for that pressure to ease off. The platforms themselves carry the real responsibility for complying with the ban properly.
“There’s also a strong chance this creates a big opportunity for new social platforms that are genuinely safe and built for younger users, with the right limitations and restrictions, but allowing young people to connect with their friends and groups. That feels like an exciting space to watch.”
Jenny Stanley, Managing Director, Appetite Creative
“The UK Government’s social media ban for under-16s is a landmark moment – and a significant signal to brands about where young audiences will and won’t be reachable in the future.
“For marketers, this raises an urgent question: if you can’t reach the next generation through social feeds, how do you connect with them in a way that’s both effective and trustworthy?
“This is precisely where connected packaging becomes even more powerful. Physical products are already in the hands of consumers of all ages – they’re in every home, every lunchbox, every fridge. By turning packaging into an interactive digital experience via a QR code scan, brands can create age-appropriate, compliant, and genuinely engaging experiences that reach young people through the products they already use – without relying on social media algorithms or platforms.
“Connected packaging is also inherently more transparent. Brands control the experience, the data, and the messaging – making it a far more trustworthy channel for both consumers and regulators than the opaque world of social media feeds.
“As we see the digital landscape tighten with regulation, the smartest brands will look to owned media channels. Packaging is the original owned media – and connected packaging makes it smarter, safer, and more trustworthy than ever.”
Daniel Todaro, CEO, Gekko
“This is indeed a landmark moment, and a legacy Kier hopes to leave, regardless of whether he stays or goes.
“The public has spoken, and when 116,000 respondents from industry, parents and young people responded, an overwhelming 90% backed a ban on social media access for those under 16.
“The government is doing what all democratically elected governments should: responding to public input and beginning to remedy the situation in line with the 9/10 of the public’s wishes.
“Interestingly, there seems to be little detail. While platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X will be included in the ban, the messaging services WhatsApp and Signal will not. The devil is now in the detail, and all will patiently anticipate that detail.
“The impact could be seismic, and many brands that advertise on all these platforms to younger users will no longer bother. This may cause platforms to diversify or fail, significantly impacting marketing budgets and the industry.
“However, one could argue that brands and agencies could have acted more responsibly before the need for a ban and social media platforms could have adapted to create less addictive platforms and restrict access to unacceptable content and users.
“Protecting our young people in society is never in question. However, does this go far enough to stop the manner in which social media enables access to harmful content, addiction that impacts mental health and exploitation of our young people?
“It may help create a greater barrier but remains inconclusive as a permanent solution.”
Joe Churchill, Founder & CEO, Fan Club
“The new social media ban announced by the Government today should really take into account the different uses and functionality of certain platforms.
“YouTube is not a social network, in that it has limited social interaction compared to others, and for many young people it is a source of education, skills development, entertainment, and creative inspiration.
“It is also home to popular and trusted children’s creators, such as Danny Go and Ms Rachel, whose content is viewed by millions of families every day.
“These are important distinctions when considering restrictions for under-16s.”
Matt Payton, CEO, Radiocentre
“Meaningful action to tackle the harm caused by social media platforms is long overdue. Their toxic impact on mental health and wellbeing of young people is well documented and cannot be allowed to continue.
“However, a complete social media ban risks being a blunt instrument if it’s not accompanied by additional requirements on the platforms to address the harmful content they carry – and the way this is served due to algorithms that prioritise engagement over child safety.
“Failure to tackle this fundamental underlying issue could inadvertently let social media companies off the hook.”
Savina Parvanova, Global Marketing Director, Limelight Inc.
“It’s good news principally for the young people “affected” by the ban, who will be spared the worst excesses of social media until they are old enough to deal with them.
“It’s good news for advertisers too, who will be forced to stop taking the soft option of targeting children on social media platforms, and will instead be able to legitimately engage with them for products and services designed for children in the safer, more responsible environment of the open web.”
Ben Mayor, Social Director, Akcelo
“Australia’s decision was initially met with much trepidation (much like is currently happening in the UK). Many platforms fought for exclusion with a narrative that they weren’t a social platform, but an entertainment destination. A fair argument when you consider the usage behaviours of consumers, but ultimately, an unsuccessful one.
“When enacted, the ban delivered where it was designed to. The major platforms complied, millions of underage accounts were removed, and for the first time, the burden shifted from parents to the platforms themselves. That is a significant and meaningful win.
“Teenagers proved, almost immediately, to be a step ahead. VPN usage spiked, systems had to adapt to borrowed parental identities, and a rapid migration to platforms outside the legislation’s scope (enter Lemon8, Discord, Yope). The workarounds emerged quickly, as the ban redirected behaviour; it didn’t eliminate it.
“For brands, the visible impact has been negligible. The anticipated disruption to platform audiences never materialised. Under-16s were never the cornerstone of most serious marketing strategies, and those operating in youth-relevant categories adapted without significant friction. The big platform feeds continued largely uninterrupted, with the vanity spikes in niche social platforms not sustained.
“The clearest lesson Australia offers the UK is this: the legislation starts the conversation, but it won’t resolve it on its own. Sustained enforcement, broader platform accountability, and meaningful digital education must follow if the intent behind the ban is to become the reality.”
Stephen Judge, Founder & Strategic Development Director, Bonfire Creative Intelligence
“I’ll be honest: when the Government announced the ban on social media for under-16s, my first reaction wasn’t surprise. It was relief. We live in a world that is losing its ability to focus. That’s not hyperbole – it’s an observable, measurable reality.
“As someone who has spent over two decades helping brands earn the attention of their audiences, I can tell you that attention has never been more fractured, more contested, or more deliberately exploited than it is right now.
“And the people bearing the heaviest cost of that exploitation aren’t marketing directors or brand strategists. They’re children.
“The evidence is not comfortable reading. NHS England’s Mental Health of Children and Young People in England survey has documented a consistent rise in emotional disorders, anxiety, and depression across the under-17 age group, trends that have tracked closely with the mass adoption of platforms designed, by their own admission, to maximise engagement at the expense of almost everything else.
“The Children’s Society’s Good Childhood Report has pointed to similar patterns for years. The evidence base is now substantial enough to demand a policy response.
“The platforms have been aware of this for longer than most care to admit. Internal research leaked from within Meta in 2021, brought to public attention by whistleblower Frances Haugen and reported by the Wall Street Journal, showed that Instagram’s own teams knew the platform was harmful to a significant proportion of teenage girls. They pressed on regardless.
“That is not a technology problem. That is an integrity problem.
“The communications industry has a responsibility here. At Bonfire, we talk about Exospection, the conscious design of communications that reduce cognitive overload, respect the audience’s attention, and consider the genuine emotional impact of what we put in front of people. It is, at its core, the discipline of looking outward with empathy and intent.
“The algorithmic social feed is Exospection’s precise opposite: a system engineered to exploit psychological vulnerability, not protect it.
“The creative and communications industries cannot on one hand advocate for brands to behave with integrity, to earn attention rather than steal it, and on the other remain silent when the platforms we use as delivery channels are demonstrably harming the youngest members of our society.
“I recognise this policy will not be simple to enforce, and that questions about implementation and digital literacy are worth having. But the principle is right, and the industry should say so clearly.
“The most extraordinary brands in the world earn their place in people’s lives. They do not exploit a developmental vulnerability to manufacture dependency.
“If we are serious about the future of communications – and about the young people who will one day be its audiences, its employees, and its leaders – then a line needed to be drawn.
“This is that line. And it’s about time.”
Richard Ottoy, SVP of Sales, EMEA, Assertive Yield
“I applaud the government’s decision to ban social media for under-16s to protect young people from harmful content, and it will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next six months.
“I hope social media platforms embrace this policy for what it is intended to do, but I do worry companies will find loopholes to protect their revenue.
“For example, YouTube will be banned for under-16s, but YouTube Kids will not. Who is expected to monitor the content being uploaded there? Similarly, messaging apps like Telegram won’t fall under this policy, so who is monitoring what minors see there?
“And, of course, if kids really want to access these platforms, they will find workarounds like VPNs.
“But well done to Sir Keir Starmer and the Labour government. Hopefully, this is a good start that changes culture in the long term.”
Suzanna Chaplin, CEO, esbconnect
“With the ban on social media for under-16s, it’s good to see the British Government recognising the harmful impact that social media addiction can have on young people.
“It’s a good first step, but it doesn’t solve the issue.
“Kids will find ways around the ban, so what we need is a more concerted approach to change attitudes. For anyone under the age of 16, social media has been as normal and constant a part of their life as TV has for older people, so we need an education programme around how to use it responsibly, and how to spot the danger signs.
“From an advertiser perspective, the ban will oblige advertisers with a legitimate interest in targeting children to find other, safer channels to do so, and that can only be a good thing.”
This is a live reactions piece and will be updated with new comments as we receive them…