The Guardian reported that Prime Minister Keir Starmer was expected to announce an "Australia plus" package, including a ban on under-16s using major social-media apps and restrictions on gaming and messaging features such as stranger chat. The report also said ministers were weighing limits on late-evening scrolling for under-18s and controls on romantic or sexual AI chatbots.
The confirmed government record is narrower. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology consultation, "Growing up in the online world", ran from March 2 to May 26 and asked about setting a minimum age for social media, restricting design features such as infinite scrolling and autoplay, changing the digital age of consent, using age verification and age assurance, and school phone guidance.
The consultation evidence should not be treated as a national poll. GOV.UK transparency data said 89% of parents and carers who answered the relevant full-length consultation question supported a legal minimum age for social-media access, but it also said the consultation sample was self-selecting and was not representative of parents and carers nationally.
That caveat matters because the policy choice is not only whether parents are worried about social media. It is also whether ministers can define which services are covered, require reliable age checks, protect children's privacy, and stop children moving to less regulated services. Age assurance means methods used to estimate or verify a user's age; it can include document checks, account signals or other technical methods, each with privacy and accuracy trade-offs.
Ofcom's existing online-safety work gives the enforcement backdrop. In March, the regulator told major sites and apps used by children, including Facebook, Instagram, Roblox, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube, that they must enforce minimum-age rules with highly effective age checks and prove a genuine commitment to protecting children online.
The independent child-safety counterpoint is already in the public record. The Guardian quoted Andy Burrows, chief executive of the Molly Rose Foundation, saying a full ban risked becoming an unenforceable measure that would not tackle underlying product-safety risks. That view matters because it comes from a child-safety campaigner, not from a platform company opposing regulation.