There is a rapidly growing global movement to restrict children’s access to social media. Australia became the first country to implement a social media ban for children in December 2025. Most recently, the UK government announced a ban on 15 June and the UAE announced similar restrictions on 18 June.
This momentum is driven by increased scrutiny on the addictive and manipulative features deliberately designed by social media platforms to maximise user engagement and the resulting harm associated with compulsive use and addiction, particularly on children.
This article argues that such bans are a misguided and incomplete response to the real problem. Rather, the regulatory efforts should focus on mandating social media platforms to ensure safety-by-design and holding them accountable for harmful design.
The root cause
An outright ban risks oversimplifying a complex problem. While, at first glance, a social media ban appears to be a strong and decisive response, it raises practical and conceptual concerns. Bans can lead to unintended consequences. Such as the migration of children to less regulated or unregulated, dark corners of the internet, where risks may be even greater. Further, effective implementation depends on robust and reliable age assurance systems that are resistant to circumvention and also safeguard user privacy—an objective that is difficult to achieve.
More fundamentally, a ban fails to address the root cause of the problem—the addictive features and manipulative design of social media platforms. The business of social media platforms depends on advertising revenue. The longer users stay on a platform, the more content they consume, and the more advertisements they are exposed to (particularly targeted ads powered by user data), thereby directly increasing platform earnings.
Notably, from 2019 to 2025, global social media advertising spending skyrocketed by 150 per cent, with increased exposure and traffic cited as key drivers. It is not surprising then that these platforms are deliberately and continuously designing and refining their design features to maximise user engagement. These include algorithmically-curated, personalised, endless feeds that encourage prolonged use, gamified elements to reward extreme usage, metrics that exploit insecurity by fostering social comparison, and incessant notifications that prompt repetitive account checking.
In a landmark US trial examining the mental health effects of Instagram and YouTube, attorney Mark Lainer said that “these companies built machines designed to addict the brains of children, and they did it on purpose.” The jury held Meta and Google liable for negligence in designing addictive and harmful platform features and in failing to provide adequate warnings about the risks associated with the use of their platforms.
While children are undoubtedly more vulnerable and susceptible to social media addiction, the widespread prevalence of compulsive usage patterns amongst adults demonstrates that such vulnerabilities are not confined solely to minors. Therefore, rather than outrightly banning children’s access to social media, a better approach would entail regulating these addictive platform features and promoting safety-by-design.
Recent global regulatory and judicial developments reinforce this shift of focus toward platform design. Some jurisdictions have already introduced laws mandating platforms to adopt safety-by-design. Virginia (USA) and China have imposed daily-usage limits. California (USA) and New York (USA) have introduced time-specific restrictions on push notifications. California (USA) has also mandated platforms to display warning labels regarding the harmful effects of social media. Vietnam and Brazil have mandated the establishment of technical systems that enable parents and guardians to supervise children’s online activities. Brazil has prohibited behavioural profiling of children. A Canadian Bill, introduced in June 2026, that prohibits social media accounts for children below 16 years, is also worth mentioning. Unlike an outright ban, the proposed framework incorporates an exemption mechanism, allowing social media platforms to provide access if they can demonstrate that adequate safeguards are in place to protect children.
In February 2026, the European Commission preliminarily found TikTok’s additive design to be in breach of the Digital Service Act. This included features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications, and its highly personalised recommender system. The Commission noted that TikTok failed to adequately assess and mitigate the risks these addictive features posed to users, including minors and vulnerable adults.
Also read: Why a Cambridge professor says UK social media ban is just a lazy fix
Rethinking India’s approach
The Government of India’s Economic Survey 2025-26 has also flagged the risks associated with social media addiction. Addressing these concerns, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Goa have expressed their intentions to introduce comparable bans for children. Karnataka has already announced a ban, though it is not in effect yet. The Central Government though, is not in favour of an outright social media ban for children. Instead, it is considering a graded, age-based framework, with varying levels of restrictions across three categories, namely, 8-12 years (strictest restrictions), 12-16 years (moderate restrictions), and 16-18 years (limited restrictions). While the finer details are yet to be finalised, the proposed measures include time-based usage limits, parental consent and platform design obligations.
At this juncture, it is important to note that Indian regulators are not new to intervening in platform design. In 2023, the Central Consumer Protection Authority prohibited platforms from engaging in 13 types of ‘dark patterns’ i.e. deceptive UI/UX design patterns that mislead or manipulate consumers. This prompted tangible positive design changes across major e-commerce platforms like BlinkIt, Zepto, Zomato, Swiggy, Myntra, Flipkart, BookMyShow, etc. In 2025, Tamil Nadu introduced a ‘Cinderella Law’, requiring online game providers to restrict access to online real money games between 12 am to 5 am. The law also mandated providers to display cautionary messages—“Online Gaming is Addictive in Nature—at login, along with personalised pop-up alerts informing users of prolonged continuous play. This law was challenged and was upheld by the Madras High Court.
These precedents demonstrate that the Government has the authority to mandate healthier platform designs, in the interests of public health, and consumer and child safety. The question now is regarding the appropriate design measures that could be mandated to make social media platforms healthier.
At a minimum, irrespective of user age, platforms should be required to display clear, prominent and non-bypassable warning labels at login and after extended periods of use, highlighting the risks associated with excessive engagement. Age-appropriate restrictions for children could include requiring platforms to either disable access or limit push notifications during school hours and/or late-night periods (12 am to 6 am). The Government could also mandate daily-use caps for child accounts.
Platforms could also be mandated to disable or turn off, by default, features that promote endless scrolling, such as algorithmic recommendations and auto-play features, for child users. Notably, about a decade ago, social media platforms like Instagram had feeds with end points. Upon reaching the wall, users would eventually encounter a “You’re all caught up” message, signaling that there was no more content to view. This forced users to disengage and get off the platform.
Similarly, comparison metrics and social validation features such as likes, share counts, etc., could also be disabled by default for young users. In addition, the soon-to-be operationalised Digital Personal Data Protection Act already mandates parental consent for processing of children’s data and prohibits targeted advertisement and behavioural monitoring of minors.
It’s important to note social media is not all evil. It enables children to foster social connection, find communities and support groups based on shared interests and identities, and provides opportunities for self-expression.
A safety-by-design approach offers a balanced and sustainable solution. Rather than exiling children from the social media platforms altogether, it focuses on reshaping those spaces to make them age-appropriate, safer and healthier. Importantly, when children are not entirely shut out but instead provided with safer digital environments, they are less likely to seek out unregulated alternatives or attempt to circumvent restrictions.
Thus, while a ban may seem popular, it is not the best policy solution.
Alekhya Sattigeri is a lawyer with a keen interest in technology and competition law. Views are personal.
(Edited by Theres Sudeep)