By Lucy Caulkett-
Family lawyers are preparing for a significant shift in the nature of parental disputes following government plans to ban under-16s from accessing social media platforms, with experts warning that disagreements over children’s digital lives could increasingly find their way into the courts.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer this week confirmed that the government intends to introduce restrictions preventing children under the age of 16 from accessing popular social media platforms including TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram. The proposed measures, expected to come into force in spring 2027, are also likely to encompass platforms such as YouTube, Facebook and X, marking one of the most far-reaching interventions in children’s online activity ever proposed in the UK.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
Announcing the plans, Starmer said the move was necessary to protect the safety, wellbeing and happiness of young people amid growing concerns about the impact of social media on mental health, online exploitation, cyberbullying and exposure to harmful content. The proposal follows years of debate among policymakers, educators, child psychologists and technology experts about the role social media plays in shaping childhood experiences and development.
While the political focus has largely centred on online safety, legal professionals are already assessing the potential consequences for family law, particularly in cases involving separated parents. Experts believe the proposed ban could transform what have traditionally been considered parenting disagreements into matters carrying greater legal significance.
Andrew Morris, a family law partner at national law firm HCR Law, (pictured)said disputes over children’s access to smartphones, screen time and social media are already commonplace among separated families. However, he believes the government’s proposed restrictions could fundamentally alter how such disagreements are viewed by courts. He told the Law Society’s Gazette
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
“Many separated parents already disagree about issues such as screen time, smartphones and access to social media,” Morris said. “What is changing is the wider public and political conversation around children’s online safety. If the law moves towards restricting social media access for under-16s, parents who allow unrestricted access may find their decisions coming under greater scrutiny if disputes reach the family courts.”
The comments reflect a broader evolution in family law, where judges increasingly consider a wide range of factors affecting a child’s welfare. Historically, courts have been reluctant to intervene in ordinary parenting decisions unless there is evidence of harm or a significant welfare concern. However, if social media access becomes subject to statutory restrictions or strong government guidance, lawyers suggest courts may begin treating digital exposure as a welfare issue rather than merely a matter of differing parenting philosophies.
The potential implications are significant. In disputes involving child arrangements, one parent could argue that the other is failing to protect a child from harmful online content or is disregarding legal restrictions designed to safeguard young people. Such concerns could become part of wider discussions about parental responsibility and decision-making.
Morris cautioned against exaggerating the likely impact on court outcomes but acknowledged that online behaviour and digital access may become increasingly relevant. He noted that a child watching videos on YouTube would not determine where a child lives or the level of contact granted to a parent. Nevertheless, judges may be more willing to examine whether a child is being exposed to material considered inappropriate or harmful.
“As concerns about online safety continue to grow, separated parents may need to have much clearer conversations about the rules and boundaries that apply in both households,” he said.
The emergence of digital parenting as a legal issue reflects wider societal changes. Children are spending more time online than any previous generation, with smartphones becoming a central part of education, communication and entertainment. For many families, questions surrounding device ownership, app usage and internet access have become as contentious as traditional disputes over bedtime routines, schooling or extracurricular activities.
Legal practitioners suggest that the proposed ban could encourage parents to formalise agreements around technology use, particularly in high-conflict separations. Family mediators may also find themselves dealing more frequently with disagreements about digital boundaries, online monitoring and compliance with age restrictions.
However, while family lawyers are considering the implications for domestic disputes, technology law specialists have raised serious questions about whether the government’s plans can be effectively implemented. Matt Holman, a technology, data and artificial intelligence partner at leading law firm Cripps, warned that enforcement remains one of the biggest challenges facing any attempt to prohibit under-16s from accessing social media platforms.
“There are several obvious problems with a social media ban, which include a probable lack of enforcement,” Holman said. “Law without enforcement is an illusion.”
His concerns highlight a dilemma faced by governments worldwide. While several countries have explored age-based restrictions on social media, ensuring compliance has proved difficult. Children often possess sophisticated digital skills and can circumvent restrictions through virtual private networks, alternative accounts or platforms operating outside domestic regulatory frameworks.
Holman argued that enforcement challenges are compounded by broader concerns about regulatory capacity. He noted that the UK has experienced a decline in effective data protection enforcement in recent years, raising questions about whether authorities possess the resources necessary to police widespread online restrictions.
The debate also touches on complex issues surrounding privacy and age verification. In order to prevent under-16s from accessing social media, platforms may be required to implement robust age-checking systems. Critics argue that such measures could require users to submit personal information or identity documents, potentially creating new privacy risks and administrative burdens.
Technology companies have long resisted stringent age-verification requirements, citing concerns about practicality, user privacy and technological limitations. Any future legislation is therefore likely to face intense scrutiny from both the technology sector and civil liberties organisations.
Despite these challenges, public concern about children’s online experiences continues to grow. Studies have repeatedly linked excessive social media use with increased anxiety, depression, sleep disruption and exposure to harmful content among young people. Campaigners have called for stronger safeguards following a series of high-profile cases involving cyberbullying, self-harm content and online exploitation.
The government’s proposed ban signals a willingness to take more decisive action, but it may also usher in a new era of legal and social complexity. Family courts could increasingly be asked to weigh competing parental views on digital freedoms and online safety, while technology regulators grapple with the practical realities of enforcement.
With the proposed 2027 implementation date approaching, lawyers expect detailed guidance and legislation to clarify how the restrictions will operate in practice. Until then, one thing appears certain: the debate over children’s access to social media is no longer confined to technology companies and policymakers. It is rapidly becoming a family law issue, with the potential to reshape how parents, courts and society approach the digital upbringing of the next generation.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar