The United Kingdom has announced an ambitious plan: to prevent minors under 16 from using certain social media platforms starting in the spring of 2027. The proposal would affect platforms such as Instagram , TikTok , YouTube , Snapchat , Facebook , and X , focusing on services that allow interaction between users, content publication, and algorithmic recommendations.

According to the British government, the measure aims to reduce harm, protect the well-being of children and adolescents, and restore some degree of predictability to families in an increasingly opaque digital environment. The plan is accompanied by other restrictions, such as limitations on livestreaming , communication with strangers, and intimate chatbot functionalities for minors.

At first glance, the idea seems simple: if early exposure to social media can generate significant risks, simply prohibit access. But in digital law, simple solutions almost always hide complex problems.

The British debate is of direct interest to Brazil because it coincides with the implementation of the so-called Digital ECA, Law No. 15.211/2025, aimed at protecting children and adolescents in digital environments. The ANPD (National Data Protection Authority) has already begun monitoring the adequacy of app stores and operating systems, especially regarding age verification and the provision of age-related information.

Therefore, there is an international convergence: governments are ceasing to treat the presence of children on platforms as a merely family or contractual issue. Digital childhood has become a matter of regulation, data protection, consumer protection, civil liability, and technological design.

How can the restriction benefit children and families?

The first potential benefit of a restrictive policy is to shift responsibility. For years, digital platforms have transferred to families the burden of monitoring environments designed to capture attention, monetize behavior, and encourage continued use. By requiring stricter age limits, the state signals that child safety cannot depend solely on “parental control” or terms of service that no one reads.

The second benefit is to pressure platforms to adopt more serious mechanisms for age verification, moderation, algorithmic transparency, and age-appropriate design. If the rule is well-constructed, the company will no longer profit from ambiguity: it will not be able to claim ignorance about the massive presence of children in services formally intended for those over 13 years of age.

The third benefit lies in the reduction of certain concrete risks: grooming, exposure to self-harming content, dangerous challenges, inappropriate behavioral advertising, excessive data collection, cyberbullying , and manipulation by design. No law will eliminate these risks, but regulation can reduce the economic incentives that amplify them.

There is also an important symbolic benefit. The British proposal states that childhood should not be organized by the engagement metrics of the platforms. This point is relevant: social networks are not just spaces for communication. They are environments of behavioral architecture, with algorithmic recommendations, visibility ranking, and advertising exploitation of attention.

Risks of a broad ban

But the blanket ban also has problems. The first is its effectiveness. Teenagers can use VPNs, third-party accounts, fake data, or migrate to less regulated platforms. If this happens, the rule can create a false sense of security.

The second risk is privacy. To know who is under 16, platforms will need to verify age. This may involve facial recognition, documents, bank details, digital identity, or other methods. The paradox is evident: to protect children, it may end up collecting more data from all users.

The third risk is restricting legitimate uses. Social networks also function as spaces for learning, cultural participation, artistic expression, scientific dissemination, community organization, and sociability. A mature public policy needs to differentiate between risk, abuse, and healthy use.

Therefore, the correct question might not be “should children be on social media or not?”, but rather: “which digital services can accommodate children, under what conditions, with what responsibilities, what are the limits on data collection, and what is the liability for the consequences?”

Comparison with Brazil

Brazil has not yet adopted a blanket ban similar to the one announced by the United Kingdom. The Brazilian approach appears to be more regulatory than prohibitive.

Law No. 15.211/2025, known as the Digital ECA (Statute of Children and Adolescents), creates a specific framework for the protection of children and adolescents in digital environments. The Ministry of Justice presents the law as an update to child and adolescent protection in the face of technological challenges. The ANPD (National Data Protection Authority), in turn, has assumed a central role in implementation and oversight, including monitoring app stores and operating systems.

This difference is significant.

The United Kingdom is moving towards a broad age barrier on certain social media platforms. Brazil, at least for now, is focusing on compliance obligations: age verification, governance, risk prevention, digital product suitability, and supplier accountability.

The Brazilian model could be more sophisticated if it manages to move beyond the planning stage. Instead of simply expelling minors from platforms, it could force companies to redesign their services. This includes more protective default settings, limiting behavioral advertising, using appropriate language, effective reporting channels, controlling communication with strangers, restricting manipulative design, and processing data guided by the best interests of children and adolescents.

On the other hand, Brazil faces a well-known challenge: enforcement. Regulation without effective sanctioning capacity becomes merely a manual of good intentions. The recent actions of the ANPD (National Data Protection Authority) indicate that the country is trying to build this capacity, but the real test will be the response from the large platforms and the coordination between the ANPD, the Ministry of Justice, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, Senacon (National Consumer Secretariat), the Judiciary, and human rights advocacy organizations.

What should Brazil learn from the British experience?

Brazil doesn’t need to copy the British ban. But it should heed three lessons.

The first point is that the user’s age matters legally. Platforms cannot continue treating children as miniature adults. The legal framework for childhood demands absolute priority, comprehensive protection, and concrete risk assessment.

The second point is that self-regulation by the platforms has been insufficient. If voluntary mechanisms had been effective, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia, and Brazil would not be advancing specific regulations for digital childhood.

The third point is that age verification cannot be confused with widespread surveillance. Brazil needs to establish technical and legal parameters for age verification that respect the LGPD (Brazilian General Data Protection Law), minimize data, avoid discrimination, and preserve user privacy.

Conclusion

The UK plan represents a harsh reaction to a real problem. It may benefit children by reducing early exposure to high-risk environments and forcing platforms to take responsibility. But it could also lead to evasion, excessive data collection, and exclusion from legitimate uses of the internet.

Brazil seems to be following a different path: not a broad ban, but the regulation of digital architecture. This model has the potential to be better, provided it is taken seriously.

The central issue is not choosing between total freedom and total prohibition. The contemporary legal challenge is to build digital environments in which children and adolescents can exist with safety, dignity, privacy, and healthy development.

Childhood cannot be the hidden price of the attention economy.

____________________________________

Bibliography

BRAZIL. Law No. 15.211, of September 17, 2025. Provides for the protection of children and adolescents in digital environments. Brasília, DF: Presidency of the Republic, 2025. Available here . 2026.

BRAZIL. National Data Protection Agency. ECA Digital. Brasília, DF: ANPD, 2026. Available here .

BRAZIL. National Data Protection Agency. ANPD begins monitoring the compliance of app stores and operating systems with the Digital Statute of Children and Adolescents. Brasília, DF: ANPD, June 10, 2026. Available here .

REINO UNIDO. Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Fact sheet: New rules to protect children online. Londres: GOV.UK, 2026. Disponível aqui.

UNITED KINGDOM. Ofcom. Online safety. London: Ofcom, 2026. Available here .

THE GUARDIAN. UK under-16s social media ban: which apps will be blocked and how will it work? Londres, 17 jun. 2026. Disponível aqui.

EUROPEAN UNION. European Commission. The Digital Services Act. Brussels: European Commission, 2026. Available here .

• Ithalo Vasconcelos D’Sá is a lawyer with a postgraduate degree in Digital Law and data protection.