New Zealand to introduce bill for under-16s social media ban
New Zealand's government is introducing an Online Safety Bill that would ban under-16s from using social media platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat and Facebook, requiring companies to verify users' ages or face fines of up to 10% of their global revenue. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said the aim is to protect children from "harmful content, addictive technology and pressures they are not equipped to deal with", extending real-world child protections into the online sphere. However, the bill's future is uncertain, as coalition partners Act and New Zealand First have both said they will vote against it.
The bill, to be introduced to parliament on Monday, would require platforms to take "reasonable steps" to verify ages using methods such as existing account data, facial age estimation and digital identity checks, and to regularly assess and report on risks to young users. No penalties would apply to children or parents, but corporate fines could exceed Australia's maximum of $99m (£51.7m), where a similar ban introduced in December has proven difficult to enforce. Act leader David Seymour called the plan unworkable, while NZF's Winston Peters branded Australia's ban a "colossal failure"; the move follows France's top court recently blocking a comparable measure on free-expression grounds, while the UK and Greece are preparing their own restrictions for next year.
- New Zealand proposes banning under-16s from social media platforms
- Firms breaching rules could face fines up to 10% of global revenue
- Coalition partners Act and NZ First say they'll oppose the bill
New here? Start with this
New Zealand's coalition government wants to stop children under 16 from using social media platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat and Facebook. Under the proposed Online Safety Bill, companies would have to verify users' ages using tools like existing account data or facial age estimation, and could face fines of up to 10% of their global revenue if they fail to do so. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says the goal is to shield young people from harmful content and addictive design.
The plan comes from Luxon's National party, but it faces resistance from its own coalition partners, Act and New Zealand First, both of which have said they will oppose it, leaving its prospects in parliament unclear. This makes New Zealand part of a wider international debate: Australia introduced a similar ban in December that has proved hard to enforce, France's top court recently struck down a comparable law on free-speech grounds, and the UK and Greece are both planning their own restrictions for next year.
The issue matters because it sits at the intersection of child welfare and questions about free expression, workability and the power of large technology companies. How New Zealand's bill fares could influence the wider global push to regulate children's access to social media, and highlights the practical difficulties governments face in verifying users' ages online.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that childhood should not be left unprotected simply because a threat is digital rather than physical, and that lawmakers have a duty to shield young people from algorithmically amplified content, addictive design and online pressures they are not yet equipped to navigate. They point to mounting evidence linking heavy social media use to anxiety, poor sleep and diminished wellbeing among adolescents, and see age verification as a proportionate extension of protections society already accepts for alcohol, gambling and driving. Placing obligations on platforms rather than on children or parents is, in this view, the right way to correct a market failure where companies profit from engagement mechanics that are hard for families to counter alone.
The case against
Critics contend that a blanket ban is a blunt instrument that will prove difficult to enforce, as Australia's experience has shown, while pushing under-16s towards less regulated corners of the internet or workarounds that undermine the policy's own goals. They worry about the practicality and privacy implications of mandatory age verification, including facial estimation and digital identity checks, and argue such measures risk normalising surveillance for the entire population, not just minors. Many also see this as an overreach into matters of parental responsibility and personal liberty, echoing concerns raised by France's courts about free expression, and question whether restricting access addresses the underlying harms of content and design rather than merely displacing them.