Legal experts are sounding the alarm over a new proposed law in the United Kingdom that seeks to ban children from using social media and Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). They warn these measures could unduly inconvenience adults and compromise their privacy, as it may necessitate age verification for a wide array of everyday online platforms and services.
The UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA), which became law in July 2025, mandated that websites prevent children from accessing pornography and other content deemed dangerous by the government. While the legislation aimed to enhance internet safety, it has proven easily circumvented by technologically adept minors. For instance, facial recognition systems intended for age verification can be deceived using screenshots of video game characters, and VPNs allow users to mask their location, making it appear as if they are accessing services from countries without such age restrictions.
The reported 77 percent drop in visits to a prominent adult website from the UK following the OSA’s implementation should be viewed critically. It is likely that users are simply adjusting their settings to appear as if they originate from countries where age verification is not required.
Now, members of the House of Lords have put forward amendments to the forthcoming Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, currently progressing through Parliament. These amendments appear to target the loopholes in the existing legislation. However, their broad phrasing could inadvertently affect a much wider range of services beyond just social media platforms.
Unintended Consequences of New Legislation
The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill was initially introduced by the Department for Education with the stated purpose of supporting children in care and improving educational standards. However, digital rights specialist Heather Burns describes the bill as having morphed into a “monster,” with online safety provisions being forced into legislation largely unrelated to the original intent. Burns notes that parliamentary debates have seen discussions shift dramatically from online safety to seemingly disparate topics like school milk. She characterizes this as an aggregation of unresolved grievances related to the Online Safety Act being incorporated into the new bill.
One specific amendment aims to prohibit individuals under 16 from using social media, defining it broadly as “user-to-user services.” This expansive definition could ensnare numerous other online platforms, including Wikipedia, messaging applications like WhatsApp, online forums, and even shared family calendar applications, categorizing them alongside social media for the purpose of the ban.
A further amendment proposes to ban VPN usage for those under 16. Given the known limitations of current age verification technologies, this proposed solution carries obvious flaws.
Expert Criticisms and Privacy Risks
“These are dreadful amendments,” stated Neil Brown of the law firm decoded.legal. He believes the proposed legislation risks rendering a variety of commonplace services illegal for minors. Furthermore, it could compel adults to undergo mandatory age checks, potentially exposing their browsing history to government surveillance or malicious actors, and to the public in the event of data leaks. Brown also expresses skepticism about the fundamental premise that prohibiting children from accessing certain services inherently enhances their safety.
“I am absolutely unconvinced that banning children from social media is in any way the right way of solving it,” Brown elaborated. “The bit that’s lacking to me, the massive gap in all this, is, can someone please set out clearly and concisely what is the problem that they are trying to solve?”
Brown acknowledges a general agreement that the OSA is not functioning as intended, though opinions differ on the reasons. Child safety advocates contend that it does not go far enough, while digital rights campaigners argue it overreaches.
He also expressed doubt that these amendments will be enacted. The Labour government has indicated it will separately consult on a VPN ban for children and on social media access. Australia has already implemented a ban on social media for individuals under 16, and the European Union is considering similar legislative measures.
Broader Implications for Digital Rights
James Baker, a spokesperson for the Open Rights Group, informed New Scientist that the amendments would grant the secretary of state for the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology the authority to arbitrarily add sites and services to a list that would place them under the department’s jurisdiction. “That would require adults to hand over personal or biometric data to third-party providers to generate a digital age credential simply to access lawful content,” Baker stated. He emphasized, “Child safety is vital, but giving ministers sweeping powers to make communication conditional on digital ID is a profound and risky expansion of state control.”
Burns further cautioned that such legislation could create a digital record of citizens’ browsing habits, posing risks both currently and in the future. She cited the recent demand by the US Congress’s Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for details of Wikipedia users who edited an article concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict as an example. “It’s this sort of witch hunt culture, and if Wikipedia had an age-verification system in place, they would have been able to pull up that data,” Burns remarked. “That is the future that some people in the UK seem to want by mandating an age ID check.”
The Department for Education, which proposed the bill, referred inquiries regarding the matter to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, which did not provide a response.