Consultation outcome

Summary of evidence, methodology, and organisations who responded to the consultation: July 2026

Updated 15 July 2026

Introduction

This document summarises responses to the ‘Growing up in the online world: a national conversation’ full consultation questionnaire, and relevant email submissions.

Background

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) consulted on further measures to prepare children for the future in an age of rapid technological change. This included potential age restrictions on social media and other services such as gaming sites and AI chatbots, restrictions on addictive design features and risky functionalities, and better support for parents and families. The consultation ran from 10:30am on 2 March 2026 to 11:59pm on 26 May 2026.

Respondents could submit their views through the ‘full consultation’ questionnaire, which included all questions, or separate, focused consultation questionnaires for children and young people up to 21, as well as their parents and carers. The parents’ and children’s consultations were hosted by our delivery partner Savanta.

In addition to the parents’ and children’s consultations, DSIT commissioned Savanta to conduct a nationally representative panel survey of parents and children, asking the same questions. We also accepted responses via email, including many pro-forma responses from a campaign.

Across the range of options, we received 116,211 responses, including 24,534 to the full consultation questionnaire, 279 unique emails, and 33,141 campaign emails. This subset of results is summarised in this document.

There were a further 39,116 responses to the parents’ consultation, 5,011 responses to the parents’ panel survey, 5,113 responses to the children and young people’s consultation, and 9,017 responses to the children and young people’s panel survey. The results from these have been published alongside this document.

Methodology

The consultation included a combination of closed (“multiple choice”) and open (free text) questions, as well as email responses, which didn’t follow the questionnaire format.

For the closed questions, we have presented the data tables from Smart Survey, the questionnaire platform the department uses. Because of the length of the questionnaire, the consultation asked very few demographic questions. However, we have detailed the responses by parents, for comparison with the equivalent questions in the parents’ consultation. ^{[footnote 1]}

To analyse open questions in any consultation, the responses to each question are assessed, and common themes in responses are identified. Then the number of responses that include each theme is calculated.

Historically, these 2 processes have been done by large project teams of civil servants, working for months to read every response several times to collate a summary of all responses. However, this process can be completed more quickly and consistently by AI, with human oversight.

This consultation was analysed with Consult, an AI tool developed by the government specifically to analyse responses to public consultations. It analyses thousands of responses any government consultation might receive in hours, before presenting policy makers with interactive dashboards to explore responses directly.

Consult follows the general approach outlined above to analyse responses. After data cleaning and upload, Consult identifies potential common themes in responses. These themes are reviewed by officials who compare each theme to responses to confirm that they are representative. Officials edited any themes that were not accurate and discarded themes that were not relevant or were repetitive. When the themes were finalised, Consult counted the number of responses that mentioned each theme and reported the results for officials to analyse.

In the case of this consultation, a change to the standard Consult process was agreed. An interim run of the Consult process was completed around the mid-point of the consultation period, using the first c. 12,000 responses. Themes identified in this run informed the analysis of the responses in the full final data set.

To mitigate against any major changes in the nature of responses officials used:

• Analytical safeguards within the Consult tool, including flags for post-interim responses and evidence-rich submissions, to identify missed or emerging themes.
• Direct reviews for new and evidence-rich responses that could not be mapped to an existing theme.
• Analysis to demonstrate that the interim dataset is consistent with the final dataset.
• Comparison with another consultation which used an interim and final run.

The 279 email responses to the consultation were individually reviewed by officials because these responses typically did not follow the questionnaire format, arrived towards the end of the consultation period, were evidence-rich, and were submitted by key stakeholders. Officials analysed each submission and created a short summary of key themes and issues identified. These summaries can be found at the end of each section of questions and summarise views from stakeholders across all of the questions in each section.

These email responses often originate from civil society organisations, businesses and other stakeholders with a unique and important perspective, for example the impact on children with a disability, or a platform with an innovative service. Therefore, in some cases the insight of a single respondent is highlighted in the summary, to ensure that perspective is considered in policy-making.

A further 33,141 pro forma emails organised by a campaign were received. The proforma text for this response has been included as Annex A.

A list of organisations represented by respondents is included as Annex B.

Describing the prevalence of themes in free text

Consultations are not representative polls and are designed to elicit the range of insights on the policy, rather than assess the prevalence of opinions. Response analysis involves some subjective judgement.
Therefore, the summaries of responses to each of the open questions below, use these descriptive terms to indicate the prevalence of themes that were raised in responses:

Descriptor	Percentage of responses
‘very few’	0-5%
‘few’	6%-10%
‘a small number’	11%-25%
‘some’	26%-45%
‘around half’	46%-55%
‘many’	56%-75%
‘most’	76%-90%
‘a large majority’	91%-95%
‘an overwhelming majority’	96%-99%
‘all’	100%

In some cases, support for a theme may appear lower than expected. That may be because few respondents raised that issue specifically while most made a general statement about risks, for example, or it may occur where most respondents answered the question with a numerical minimum age, for instance, and only a few respondents included additional context to be summarised as a theme.

Email responses are not comparable to the open question responses in the questionnaire, so this schema was not used for the summaries of email responses.

Caveats

• Consultation respondents are a self-selecting sample, characterised by higher motivation and knowledge of how to engage with government. Responses are not from a nationally representative sample of the public. For example, we know that parents and children from lower socio-economic backgrounds are underrepresented in responses to the consultation. That is why a nationally representative panel survey of parents and children was also conducted by Savanta. The results of this panel survey have been published as part of this response.
• Due to the length of the survey, respondents were asked which Chapters of the consultation they wanted to answer the questions for. Further question routing (to ensure respondents only see relevant questions) was used in a very few cases, and a note has been made in the summary where and how it was used. Also, beyond some initial scoping questions, no question was compulsory, therefore not every question will have been responded to. The total count of responses and skips has been reported under each question.
• Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. Totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Benefits and risks of children using social media

In this section of the consultation, we sought views on the benefits, harms, and wider risks to children of being online and using social media. We invited responses on how digital services can support children, while also asking respondents about the potential for online environments to expose children to harms and risks.

Consultation results – question 1

1. What are the benefits of social media use, and being online, for children?

Summary of findings:

Many of the respondents to this question reported social connection, inclusion, and wellbeing as a benefit, highlighting the role of online platforms in maintaining friendships and reducing isolation. Some respondents identified other benefits including educational access, while a small number emphasised the importance of developing media literacy and digital skills, along with preparation for adulthood and social connection. A small number referenced exposure to diverse perspectives, and a few respondents highlighted engagement with the news.

A few respondents pointed to more specific benefits, including organisation, collaboration, and event access and support, and a very few indicated that social media provides connections for neurodivergent and/or disabled children. A very few respondents also noted that being online is an integral part of modern childhood.

A notable proportion of respondents raised concerns in response to this question. A small number of respondents reported very little or no benefits of children being on social media, and a few others highlighted the importance of parental oversight and/or teacher oversight when children are online. Additionally, very few respondents suggested alternative ways to achieve online benefits without relying on social media.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
Social connection, inclusion, and wellbeing	Online platforms help children maintain friendships, build supportive communities, reduce isolation, and provide access to emotional support and mental health resources, especially for marginalised or vulnerable children.	Many
Educational access	Online access provides children with educational resources, supports academic development and creates an opportunity to form social connections.	Some
Very little or no benefits of children being on social media	Social media is often seen as less beneficial or even harmful compared to other online resources, with minimal benefits that are outweighed by risks or are available through other means.	A small number
Exposure to diverse perspectives	Being online exposes children to different cultures, viewpoints, and global issues, broadening their understanding, empathy, and critical thinking.	A small number
Media literacy, digital skills, preparation for adulthood and social connection	Online engagement helps children develop essential media literacy, technical, and communication skills, preparing them for adulthood and future opportunities.	A small number
Engagement with the news	Online platforms enable children to access news, express opinions, participate in civic discourse and activism, and develop as informed citizens.	Few
Parental oversight and/or teacher oversight key	The benefits of online engagement for children are maximised when use is safe, supervised, and guided, with parents playing a key role in moderating activity and ensuring security. A majority of these responses said there is no benefit to children being on social media.	Few
Organisation, collaboration, and event access	Online tools help children organise activities, collaborate on group projects, and engage with local communities or clubs based on their interests.	A few
Support and connections for neurodivergent and/or disabled children	Online resources and tools assist children with special educational needs or disabilities by providing support and connections.	Very few
Online life part of modern childhood	Being online is an inevitable and integral part of modern childhood, with online and offline lives deeply intertwined.	Very few
Children’s use of the online world for entertainment purposes	References to children going online for entertainment purposes.	Very few
Alternative ways to achieve online benefits	The advantages attributed to social media can be achieved through other means such as messaging, calls, or supervised internet use, without relying on social media platforms.	Very few
Connecting with peers and community	Mixed views on social media benefits (mostly negative) but some view it to provide opportunity to connect with peers and community.	Very few
Inclusion	Children may experience social pressure and feel left out if they are not online when their peers are, potentially leading to exclusion.	Very few
Concerns about algorithmic reinforcement and addictive design	Concerns regarding the impact of algorithms and addictive features.	Very few
No reason given	These responses did not provide substantive answers to the question	Very few
Other	The response discussed an issue not covered by the listed themes.	Very few

Consultation results – question 2

1. What are the harms or risks of social media use, and being online, for children?

Summary of findings:

Around half of the respondents to this question reported that the harms and risks of social media use and being online include the increased exposure to harmful and age-inappropriate content. Some highlighted addiction, excessive screen time, and displacement of healthy activities, exposure to harms from algorithmic manipulation, and negative mental health and emotional wellbeing impacts. Some of the respondents also identified an increased risk of cyberbullying and online harassment and highlighted the increased risk of online grooming and exploitation.

Others emphasised risks relating to data and systems. A small number raised concerns about sharing personal data and information and targeted advertising, and while a small number highlighted the role of parental responsibility and digital literacy education in mitigating harms. A few referenced a lack of effective regulation and platform accountability, and a few also noted physical health risks and sleep disruption from online use.

A few respondents identified additional risks, including the facilitation of criminal behaviour and financial exploitation, and a very few identified uncertainty about long-term effects and emerging risks.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
Increased exposure to harmful and age-inappropriate content	Children are at significant risk of encountering violent, sexual, extremist, or otherwise harmful material online, which can negatively impact their psychological, emotional, and moral development.	Around half
Addiction, excessive screen time, and displacement of healthy activities	Online platforms are designed to be addictive, leading to excessive screen time, sleep disruption, and displacement of healthier activities and real-world social skills, negatively impacting attention, physical health, and academic performance.	Some
Increased risk of online grooming and exploitation	Children are vulnerable to being contacted, groomed, or exploited by predatory adults or strangers online, leading to risks such as sexual exploitation, abuse, and trafficking.	Some
Increased risk of cyberbullying and online harassment	Children face persistent bullying, harassment, exclusion, and abuse online, which can be relentless and lead to severe emotional distress and mental health consequences.	Some
Exposure to harms from algorithmic manipulation	Children are vulnerable to harmful content, misinformation, extremist content, and manipulative material online, often amplified by algorithms that influence beliefs and behaviours for engagement and profit.	Some
Negative mental health and emotional wellbeing impacts	Social media use is linked to increased anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, body image issues, loneliness and isolation, and even self-harm or suicidal ideation in children.	Some
Sharing personal data and information and targeted advertising	Children’s personal data may be collected, misused, or exposed online, increasing vulnerability, exploitation, and long-term reputational risks. Children’s data is exploited by targeted advertising.	A small number
Role of parental responsibility and digital literacy education	Parental supervision, digital literacy education, and guidance are crucial for mitigating online risks for children.	A small number
Physical health risks and sleep disruption from online use	Prolonged screen time and online engagement contribute to sedentary lifestyles, sleep deprivation, eye strain, obesity, and other negative physical health outcomes in children.	Few
Facilitation of criminal behaviour and financial exploitation	Social media can facilitate criminal activities such as scams, fraud, gambling, and financial exploitation, with children being targeted or involved in these risks.	Few
Lack of effective regulation and platform accountability	Social media platforms lack sufficient regulation, moderation, and accountability to protect children from harm, with calls for stricter safeguards and oversight.	Few
Uncertainty about long-term effects and emerging risks	There is concern about unknown or emerging long-term impacts of social media use on children’s development and wellbeing, including risks from new technologies like AI and deepfakes.	Very few
Concerns about government overreach and overregulation	Excessive government intervention may infringe on parental responsibility or be unwarranted compared to offline risks, potentially backfiring.	Very few
Environmental impact of increased device use by children	Increased use of digital devices by children contributes to e-waste and environmental concerns.	Very few
No reason given	These responses did not provide substantive answers to the question.	Very few
Other	The response discussed an issue not covered by the listed themes.	Very few

Consultation results – question 3

1. Do you think the benefits of children using social media, and being online, outweigh the risks, or the other way around?^{[footnote 2]}

Do you think the benefits of children using social media, and being online, outweigh the risks, or the other way around?	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
Benefits strongly outweigh the risks	16%	3,372	7%	683
Benefits somewhat outweigh the risks	10%	2,044	4%	382
Benefits and risks are roughly equal	9%	1,770	5%	498
Risks somewhat outweigh the benefits	11%	2,314	10%	958
Risks strongly outweigh the benefits	52%	10,684	72%	6,692
Don’t know / Prefer not to answer	2%	354	1%	72
	answered	20,538		9,285
	skipped	3,996		776

Email summaries on benefits and risks of children using social media

Summary of responses:

• Many stakeholders, across both civil society and industry, agreed being online can bring significant benefits for children, particularly in supporting social connection, access to information, creativity, learning and self-expression. At the same time, many respondents emphasised that these benefits sit alongside substantial harms and risks.
• Respondents suggested that both benefits and harms are unevenly distributed. Several respondents therefore implied that children’s online experiences are shaped by age, vulnerability and personal circumstances, and that a more nuanced approach is needed than treating all children or all online risks as the same.
• Some respondents argued that the relationship between children’s online activity and outcomes for wellbeing is complex and depends on the context and individual child. This was a common position among industry respondents, who cautioned against assuming that online engagement is inherently harmful or that the same activity will have the same effect in every setting. Other stakeholders noted that evidence on causal links between harm and online behaviours remains developing and contested.
• Overall, respondents agreed that children’s online experiences involve a mix of benefits, harms and wider risks. Across the responses, there was support for the principle that children should be able to access the various benefits of being online without being exposed to avoidable harms.

Benefits

Online Connection

• Civil society and industry stakeholders agreed that being online and using social media can support social connection, access to information, creativity, learning, and self-expression. Stakeholders highlighted how being online and on social media can help children connect with family and friends, find community, and peer support.
• Industry respondents placed greater emphasis on the positive role of digital services in supporting connection, participation and development where services are designed with safeguards, age-appropriate defaults and parental tools.

Digital literacy

• Industry respondents emphasised the opportunities digital services can provide, highlighting access to digital skills development and preparing children for further education and work. One stakeholder argued that being online benefits children’s digital literacy and digital skills and that this is essential for their future employment and civic participation.

News and Information

• Some MPs who responded to the consultation noted that young people at their constituency events raised that they rely on social media to access the news and current affairs. One respondent noted the importance of young people’s access to lawful journalistic and democratic content.

Education

• Education was a key benefit for civil society and industry stakeholders, noting social media and access to the internet can provide opportunities for learning and development, including for children in marginalised groups such as ethnic minorities and those with special education needs and disabilities (SEND).
• Industry respondents emphasised the opportunities digital services can provide, highlighting access to educational resources, digital skills development, creativity and community.
• Stakeholders noted that educational online tools provide children with meaningful screentime and aid their education around language skills. For instance, Welsh young people reported that social media and internet access was important to them for Welsh-language learning.
• One stakeholder acknowledged the benefit of online platforms for high-value educational and social resources and that restrictions would impact access to those in need of support.

Safeguarding and Support

• One respondent stressed that children must not lose access to the benefits of being online which includes vital safeguarding support via the likes of Childline.
• Stakeholders also noted LGBTQ+ and neurodivergent children have specific support benefits from access to being online. These children were reported to use social media and the internet for mental health support, finding community, online connectivity including socialising and making friends, and finding resources relating to their lived experiences.
• One stakeholder highlighted the benefits of being online for children with disabilities. They noted that Deaf and Deafblind young people rely on online spaces for access to BSL culture and peer support.
• Welsh children reported that social media and apps like WhatsApp were important for rural connectivity, in particular maintaining contact with their parents and carers and feeling safe in rural areas.

Medical Information

• A health-related stakeholder flagged social media and digital tools are frequently used by children and young people for medical and mental health advice, and peer-support networks. They noted that any future policies must take into consideration children with health conditions and their rights to access to healthcare, peer support, and accessibility tools.

Opportunities and Activities

• One youth organisation fed back that 100% of their members use social media to find opportunities, activities, and support. Another stakeholder noted the positive role social media plays in informing young people about careers and employment opportunities, particularly in sectors such as construction that face significant skills shortages.
• One stakeholder distinguished between unsafe services intended for adults and well-designed, child-safe services, which they argue can drive creativity and connection for children. Gaming industry respondents also argued that online gaming has developmental and social benefits for children.
• Similarly, another stakeholder argued its service has overwhelmingly positive wellbeing benefits for UK teenagers, and that they should be able to access cultural, creative, and educational content.

Risks and Harms

• At the same time, many respondents emphasised that these benefits sit alongside substantial harms and risks.

Harmful content

• Respondents highlighted children’s exposure to harmful content and unhealthy patterns of use, as well as wider impacts on sleep, self-esteem, and concentration.
• One stakeholder noted concerns from both youth workers and young people about the impact of online harms, violent content, misogyny, exploitation, cyberbullying, addictive design, and unsafe digital environments on children and young people’s wellbeing, relationships, and safety.
• Stakeholders also suggested that harms can be gendered, with girls more likely to encounter content promoting unrealistic body types and boys more likely to encounter explicit content. One civil society respondent flagged online harms to children are not a technological issue rather an extension of societal harms like misogyny and gendered violence.

Interactions with strangers

• An MP roundtable for pupils in the North of England noted that 71% of participants have received unsolicited messages from strangers online.

Harmful and addictive designs

• Stakeholders referred to harms from recommender algorithms where personalised content can expose children to wellbeing harms, including harmful content. One stakeholder noted that many persuasive or manipulative design features depend on the use of personal information.
• Civil society stakeholders argued that persuasive platform design choices can make harmful content more frequent or more difficult for children to avoid online.

Data and Privacy Risks

• Young people highlighted that they have concerns over their own digital footprint, including where parents have been the ones to share data about their own children. They also raised concerns about sharing ‘bad’ or misinformation. This was echoed by other civil society stakeholders too.

Bullying

• Reports raised concerns about group-chat trolling, bullying, and in particular risks for SEND children.

Hatred and online radicalisation risks

• Civil society stakeholders raised concerns that young people online are susceptible to far-right rhetoric and online radicalisation. In particular, civil society stakeholders were worried about algorithmically driven radicalisation, specifically far-right ‘engagement bait’ that targets young people on social media platforms.
• A range of civil society stakeholders also raised concerns on the relationship between social media usage and grooming, and exposure to violence and extremism.

Mental and physical health risks

• Concerns were raised about the mental health impacts on children from social media usage, as well as addiction-like behaviours. One respondent noted that health harms — mental, physical and social — are being seen daily across every specialty of medicine. Similar concerns were raised by mental health clinicians.
• Some stakeholders highlighted that marginalised groups such as neurodiverse and ethnic minority children may be more likely both to experience benefits and experience harm online.
• Stakeholders specifically addressed risks linked to self-harm, suicide, eating disorder and depression content, citing survey evidence that over the course of one week more than a third of 13–17-year-olds in the UK surveyed had seen at least one type of suicide, self-harm, depression or eating disorder material. One stakeholder presented evidence that social media was directly implicated in children presenting to hospital with self-harm, suicidal ideation, eating disorders and mental health crises. They also distinguished between ‘being online’, where they felt the benefits outweighed the risks, and ‘using social media’ where the risks outweighed the benefits.

Restricting social media services by age

In this section, we consulted on whether there should be a legal requirement for social media services to have a minimum age of access, including the extent to which respondents agree that this should be set at 16, and whether a lower threshold (such as 13, 14 or 15) would be more appropriate.

We also asked about the potential impacts of raising the minimum age above 13, including effects on children’s safety and wellbeing, parents and carers, users’ privacy and data, and business costs, revenue, and innovation.

Consultation results – question 4

1. Would you support a legal requirement for social media services to have a minimum age of access?

Would you support a legal requirement for social media services to have a minimum age of access?	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
Yes	71%	15,552	89%	8,443
No	26%	5,671	10%	979
Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer	3%	605	1%	77
	answered	21,828		9,499
	skipped	2,706		562

Consultation results – question 5

1. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “Social media services should have a minimum age of access of at least 16 and should not be accessible to any children under that age”?

(This question was only asked of those who responded “Yes” or “Don’t know” to the question above)

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
“Social media services should have a minimum age of access of at least 16 and should not be accessible to any children under that age”	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
Strongly agree	78%	12,209	88%	7,415
Somewhat agree	12%	1,897	8%	671
Neither agree nor disagree	1%	204	1%	40
Somewhat disagree	4%	627	2%	159
Strongly disagree	4%	640	2%	156
Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer	0%	26	0%	3
	answered	15,603		8,444
	skipped	8,931		1,617

Consultation results – question 6

1. Would you support a legal requirement for social media services to have a minimum age of access lower than 16? If so, at what age would you set it?

(This question was asked with slight variations for those who responded “Strongly agree” or “Somewhat agree” to Question 5 above, as opposed to all other responses)

Would you support a legal requirement for social media services to have a minimum age of access lower than 16? If so, at what age would you set it? (“strongly agree”, “somewhat agree” responses to Q5 only)	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
Yes – 13	3%	458	2%	163
Yes – 14	4%	542	3%	203
Yes – 15	5%	703	4%	338
No – not lower than 16	81%	11,622	87%	7,023
Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer	1%	165	1%	46
Other (please specify)	6%	823	4%	347
	answered	14,313		8,120
	skipped	10,221		1,941

Would you support a legal requirement for social media services to have a minimum age of access lower than 16? If so, at what age would you set it? (all other responses to Q5)	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
Yes – 13	53%	673	44%	140
Yes – 14	18%	223	21%	66
Yes – 15	4%	46	5%	16
Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer	3%	37	2%	6
Other (please specify)	23%	287	27%	87
	answered	1,266		315
	skipped	23,268		9,746

Summary of ‘other’ responses

A small number of people responded with “Other” to this question and added further context in free text. The themes are summarised below; each represents very few responses.

Views were fragmented, with little consensus. Some respondents preferred flexible approaches over a single legal minimum age, suggesting platform-specific thresholds, graduated access where features unlock over time, or age-rating systems based on content and risk.

Opinions on the appropriate age diverged in both directions. Some supported a lower threshold (e.g. 10–12), often with parental permission, to build digital skills through gradual exposure. Others favoured 16 or above, citing concerns about maturity, safety, bullying and education. Across both perspectives, responses stressed the importance of safeguards rather than relying on age alone.

Responsibility was a key theme: some emphasised parental supervision, while others highlighted platform accountability through moderation and age-specific protections. Conditional access for younger users, paired with stronger online safety education, was also suggested. Finally, some questioned enforceability or opposed a legal minimum age entirely, citing privacy, proportionality and effectiveness concerns.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
Advocacy for platform-dependent access	Platform- or service-dependent access, where the age at which users can access a service varies depending on the type of platform or its features, with some platforms restricted for younger users and others available earlier, is preferred over a single minimum age.	Very few
Advocacy for graduated or staged access	Graduated or staged access to social media, where younger users have restricted or child-friendly accounts, and additional features and interactions are unlocked at defined age thresholds, is preferred over a single minimum age.	Very few
Emphasis on platform accountability for safety	Social media companies should bear primary responsibility for user safety through stronger accountability, content moderation, and age-appropriate design, rather than relying solely on age limits.	Very few
Enforceability concerns	Mandatory age verification and enforcement measures may be ineffective and could be circumvented by children.	Very few
Support for minimum age lower than 13	Advocating for a minimum age below 13, such as 10-12, is seen as a way to promote early digital skills and gradual introduction to social media, often with parental permission.	Very few
Support for minimum age of 16 or higher	Social media access should be limited until students have completed Year 11 to reduce distractions and bullying in schools. Setting the minimum age for social media access at 16 or higher (up to 21) is supported to address concerns about safety and maturity.	Very few
Emphasis on parental controls and responsibility	Parents should have the primary responsibility to set and enforce age restrictions, supervise children’s use, and apply parental controls rather than relying on strict legal minimum ages.	Very few
Opposition to legal minimum age requirement	Legal minimum age requirements for social media access are opposed due to concerns about government overreach, privacy and associated risks, and potential negative effects on adults.	Very few
Support for age rating system and content-based restrictions	An age rating system for social media, similar to cinema ratings, with parental controls and content-based restrictions, is preferred over a single minimum age.	Very few
Importance of online safety education	Online safety and media awareness education should accompany any minimum age policy to better prepare young users for social media engagement.	Very few
Uncertainty or conditional support	There is uncertainty or lack of a clear opinion, with support depending on factors such as definitions, safeguards, platform diversity, individual maturity, enforceability, or scientific research.	Very few
Conditional access for younger users	Allowing those under the minimum age to access platforms with parental consent, supervision, or on child-specific, moderated platforms, provided additional safeguards or education are in place.	Very few
Prioritising maturity over age	The stance asserts that maturity, rather than chronological age, should determine access to social media, suggesting that age-based restrictions may not be effective or appropriate.	Very few

Consultation results – question 7

1. What do you think the impacts would be of having a minimum age requirement higher than 13 for social media services?  For example, impacts on the safety and wellbeing of children, or the impact for parents and carers, as well as other users. You could also comment on the impact on all users’ privacy and data or on business costs, revenue, and innovation.

Summary of findings:

The most frequently cited theme among respondents was that an age requirement would improve child safety and wellbeing, referenced by around half of those who responded to this question. Respondents identified a range of anticipated benefits, including greater protection from online harms, reduced exposure to inappropriate content, lower risk of addiction and negative mental health impacts, and support for healthier child development. A small number of respondents advocated for a more balanced approach centred on parental responsibility, emphasising that measures such as greater parental involvement, improved digital education, safer platform design and gradual introductions to online services should be considered as preferable or necessary complements to simply raising the age limit.

A small number of respondents also raised privacy, data security, and civil liberties concerns. These responses were focused on how enforcing minimum age requirements would impact data collection, loss of anonymity, enable surveillance and potential government or corporate overreach, affecting all users. A small number also highlighted enforcement challenges and circumvention risks, stating that age limits can be difficult to enforce and that children may bypass restrictions or migrate to less regulated and more risky platforms because of minimum age requirements.

A small number of respondents said that restricting social media for younger users may hinder their digital skill development, limit access to educational and support resource and could increase social isolation, particularly for marginalised children. However, a small number of others considered that raising the minimum age would help establish clearer societal expectations around children’s use of social media, affording children greater opportunity to develop before facing online pressures. Additionally, a few respondents suggested that a minimum age requirement for social media would naturally make children spend more time engaged on other activities, such as outdoor pursuit or time with friends and family.

A small number of responses also referenced business, economic and innovation impacts however, the sentiments were mixed. Respondents mentioned that enforcing an age limit could be difficult for companies to enforce, driving them out of the UK market. However, other responses highlighted that there should be greater responsibility on these tech companies and that child safety should be a priority over profit.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
Improved child safety and wellbeing	Raising the minimum age was seen as protecting children from online harms, cyberbullying, inappropriate content, addiction, and negative mental health impacts, supporting healthier development.	Around half
Privacy, data security, and civil liberties concerns	Enforcing higher minimum age requirements raised concerns about intrusive age verification, data collection, surveillance, loss of anonymity, and potential government or corporate overreach affecting all users.	A small number
Preference for parental responsibility and balanced approaches	Parental involvement, digital education, safer platform design, and gradual introduction are considered preferable or necessary complements to simply raising the age limit.	A small number
Enforcement challenges and circumvention risks	Higher age limits are difficult to enforce, as children may bypass restrictions or migrate to less regulated platforms, potentially undermining the policy and exposing them to greater risks.	A small number
Business, economic, and innovation impacts	Stricter age requirements could reduce the youth user base and revenue for social media companies, increase compliance costs, harm smaller platforms, and potentially stifle innovation and competition.	A small number
Negative impact on digital literacy and access	Restricting social media for younger users may hinder their digital skill development, limit access to educational and support resources, and increase social isolation, particularly for marginalised children.	A small number
Establishing societal norms and delaying exposure	A higher minimum age would help set societal expectations about appropriate social media use for children, normalise delayed use, and allow children to develop before facing online pressures.	A small number
Displacement to other activities	If access were restricted, children would naturally spend more time on other activities, particularly outdoors, with friends or with family.	Few
Increased risk of social exclusion and stigma	Raising the minimum age for social media use could lead to greater feelings of isolation, exclusion, and inequality among children, especially those from vulnerable or minority groups who rely on online communities for support.	Few
Unclear or minimal impact of age limit change	There is uncertainty or belief that raising the age limit would have little effect, as children may still access social media or outcomes depend on enforcement and complementary measures.	Few
Support for higher minimum age and legal consistency	Advocates proposed setting the minimum age at 16 or higher to align with other legal thresholds and better safeguard children, while others debated the appropriateness of the current age limit.	Very few
Infringement on children’s rights and autonomy	Higher age limits may restrict children’s rights to information, community, and autonomy.	Very few
Need for child-friendly alternatives and activities	If access is restricted, there was support for developing safer, age-appropriate social media platforms and for providing more offline activities, community support, and safe spaces for young people.	Very few
Exceptions for essential services	Certain applications, such as those supporting victims of abuse or managing addictions, should remain accessible to young people even if general social media access is restricted.	Very few
Support for banning social media for all ages	A minority view held that social media is so harmful it should be banned for everyone, not just those under a certain age.	Very few
Current age limit not based on scientific evidence	The existing minimum age of 13 was viewed as arbitrary and not grounded in scientific understanding of child development or readiness for social media.	Very few
Environmental and physical health considerations	Reducing young users could decrease data usage and energy consumption, while intensive age verification systems may have negative environmental impacts or reduce exposure to electromagnetic radiation.	Very few
No reason given	The response did not provide a substantive answer to the question.	Very few
Other	The response discussed an issue not covered by the listed themes.	Very few

Email responses on restricting social media services by age

Summary of responses:

Support for a minimum age of access

• There is broad support across civil society respondents for some form of legal requirement for social media services to have a minimum age of access. A range of civil society organisations supported some form of minimum age requirement, though they differed significantly on what age that should be and to which services it should apply.

Levels of support for what that age should be

• Among those who support a minimum age, there is no consensus on the appropriate threshold. Several civil society respondents strongly supported 16 as the minimum age of access. Other respondents argued for extending this to 17 or 18, particularly in relation to services with risky features.
• Conversely, other civil society respondents favoured a minimum age of 13 (generally the minimum age that services themselves currently specify) but with stronger enforcement than required by the OSA. One respondent stated that a minimum age at 16 would be better than the status quo, but advocated for risk-based minimum ages where expert-led guidance determines whether services are accessible at 13, 16, or adult-only. Another respondent advocated prohibiting personalised services for under-13s with graduated protections up to 18.

Views on a blanket minimum age of access

• Many respondents, particularly from industry, opposed a blanket minimum age of access, instead arguing for either a risk-based or age-differentiated access. Several of those who opposed cited risks of unintended consequences, lack of evidence, and a preference for alternative approaches.
• This view is shared by several civil society and academic respondents. Many respondents expressed concern or opposition, favouring risk-based or graduated approaches over blanket bans. Other respondents rejected an Australian-style ban, citing early evidence of ineffectiveness. Several respondents also warned that children may be less likely to report harms if accessing services is perceived as prohibited. One respondent noted that they do not support a stand-alone minimum age as a primary policy solution and argued it must be secondary to stronger platform duties around age-appropriate design.

Graduated or staged approach

• Many respondents advocate for graduated, risk-based frameworks rather than a single threshold. An industry respondent favoured parental oversight for 13–15-year-olds with autonomy at 16, whilst other industry respondents supported age-differentiated access with progressively expanded features. A civil society respondent proposed expert-led safety standards determining whether services are accessible at 13, 16 or adult-only. An academic respondent suggested graded age-rating approaches similar to film and game classifications.

Risks to vulnerable groups and displacement

• Multiple organisations highlighted risks to LGBTQ+ young people and those with special educational needs, health conditions, or neurodivergence, for whom online spaces provide identity, peer support, and community. There was widespread concern that bans would push children onto lesser-regulated services with weaker safeguards.

Children’s rights

• Several respondents argued that overly broad restrictions risked violating children’s rights. Several civil society organisations argued age-based bans risk infringing children’s fundamental and digital rights, such as rights to expression, information, and association. One respondent also argued that, as 16- and 17-year-olds will be enfranchised by the Representation of the People Bill, their access to journalistic content, news publisher content, content of democratic importance must be legally guaranteed.

Cliff edge and digital literacy

• A recurring concern was the “cliff edge” effect of a binary age threshold. Many respondents warned that children reaching 16 without prior exposure would lack the digital literacy and resilience to navigate online risks. Some respondents also emphasised the educational and developmental benefits of supervised, age-appropriate access during early adolescence.

Scope and definitional challenges

• Another theme across responses was the difficulty of defining “social media” and concern about an overly broad scope. Multiple industry respondents argued specific types of services should be excluded, such as e-commerce, vertical search, messaging, gaming and creative platforms, and music streaming. A civil society respondent noted the risks that a narrow definition misses high-risk services while a broad one captures lower-risk ones, whilst others argued scope should extend beyond social media to include gaming, messaging and AI chatbots.

Safety by design and platform accountability

• There was strong cross-sector support for placing greater responsibility on platforms and stronger safety-by-design duties. One respondent called for amendments to the Online Safety Act (OSA) focused on stronger risk mitigation and removal of the safe harbour provision. Another respondent argued platforms are responsible for designing their services on the basis that children are present and require protection. Several respondents across civil society and industry favoured design-level interventions over access restrictions. One respondent warned that a shift to access-based regulation risks letting platforms “off the hook” for safeguarding whilst another noted that the current OSA framework is already being implemented and policy should build on existing industry efforts.

Parental controls and age assurance

• Several respondents highlighted the role of parents and the importance of robust age assurance. Several industry respondents advocated for age verification at app store or OS level rather than platform level and emphasised parental responsibility and existing parental control systems. A civil society respondent stressed that without effective age assurance, any ban risks providing false assurance while children continue to access services in practice.

Age of digital consent

In this section, we consulted on what age the age of digital consent in Article 8 of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) should be set at for information society services. We also asked what risks or burdens might be associated with raising the age, and what should be considered to ensure any change of age was effective and workable. Lastly, we consulted on which services we should change the age of digital consent for – whether this should be all information society services, or a smaller subset.

Consultation response – question 8

1. At what age do you think the age of digital consent in the UK should be set for information society services?

At what age do you think the age of digital consent in the UK should be set for information society services?	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
13	12%	2,617	6%	525
14	2%	496	2%	170
15	2%	483	2%	203
16	54%	11,738	70%	6,630
Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer	7%	1,609	3%	321
Other (please specify):	22%	4,726	17%	1,631
	answered	21,669		9,480
	skipped	2,865		581

Summary of ‘other’ responses

A small number of people responded with “Other” to this question and added further context in free text. The themes are summarised below; each represents very few responses.

These included respondents who said that consent should be provided by a parent or guardian.  A very few respondents opposed data collection for children as well as for other online users.

A very few respondents supported a digital age of consent being set at age 18, aligned with legal adulthood, or older. Several respondents recommended that the age of digital consent should vary by service and the context of the service. Others raised concerns around privacy and opposed the use of digital ID.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response share
Preference for parental responsibility	Digital consent decisions should be made by parents or guardians, ideally with no set legal age, allowing for individualised assessment of a child’s readiness.	Very few
Opposition to data collection for all users	Data collection, profiling, and targeted advertising for all should be banned	Very few
Support for digital consent age at 18 or higher	The digital consent age should be set at 18 to align with legal adulthood and protect children from exploitation and data collection.	Very few
Concerns about privacy and government overreach	Age verification and digital consent laws risk undermining privacy, requiring intrusive digital IDs, or representing excessive government control.	Very few
Opposition to data collection for children	Data collection, profiling, and advertising targeting children should be banned, regardless of their age.	Very few
Digital consent age should vary by service	The appropriate age for digital consent should depend on the type of online service or platform, with stricter requirements for riskier services.	Very few
Scepticism about effective enforcement of age of digital consent	Age-based digital consent laws are impractical and difficult to enforce due to issues like restriction bypassing, shared devices, and flawed consent mechanisms.	Very few
Support for digital consent age at 16	The digital consent age should be set at 16 reflecting alignment with other legal thresholds, sometimes with parental supervision or education.	Very few
Support for digital consent age at 13	The digital consent age should be set at 13, referencing international standards, current law, and the need for access for younger children, sometimes with parental supervision or education.	Very few
Preference for education and user empowerment	Education, digital literacy, parental controls, and user empowerment tools are preferable alternatives to strict age limits for digital consent.	Very few
Support for digital consent at age 17	The digital consent age should be set at 17 as children under that age may not be able to understand what they are consenting to.	Very few
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question	Very few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes	Very few

Consultation response – question 9

1. What risks or burdens may be associated with raising the minimum age of digital consent? For example, ensuring parental consent, costs to industry, access to services, volume of requests, etc.

Summary of findings

Industry impact was the most cited concern in response to this question. A small number of respondents pointed specifically to the increased regulatory and operational burden that raising the digital age of consent would place on industry. A small number of responses noted that enforcement and effectiveness challenges could undermine the policy impact, for example citing the difficulty of enforcing the digital age of consent and the associated risk that children will be able to circumvent restrictions.  A small number noted that stricter consent systems could potentially increase privacy risks.

Conversely, a small number thought that the wellbeing and safety of children justified any increase in regulation and the associated risks and burden

A small number of respondents reported risks of digital exclusion and risks related to increasing social inequality, with some responses specifically mentioning the potential impacts on vulnerable groups. A small number also cited an increase on burden for parents, families and educators.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response share
Increased regulatory and operational burden for industry	Higher age verification and compliance requirements impose substantial financial, administrative, and operational burdens on digital service providers, especially smaller companies.	A small number
Enforcement and effectiveness challenges undermine policy impact	Raising the minimum age of digital consent is difficult to enforce, as children may circumvent restrictions and robust age verification is hard to implement, potentially reducing the policy’s effectiveness.	A small number
Stricter consent systems increase privacy and surveillance risks	Enhanced age verification and consent systems raise concerns about privacy breaches, data misuse by services, surveillance, identity theft, and erosion of civil liberties.	A small number
Child safety and wellbeing justify increased regulation	Protecting children from online harms is seen as paramount, with safeguarding and wellbeing outweighing any risks or burdens from increased regulation.	A small number
Increased burden on parents, families, and educators	Higher age limits and parental consent requirements place significant administrative, practical, and emotional burdens on parents and carers, potentially leading to inequity and challenges in monitoring children’s online activities.	A small number
Digital exclusion and social inequality may increase	Raising the minimum age of digital consent risks restricting children’s access to educational, social, and support resources online, leading to digital exclusion, social isolation, and disproportionately impacting vulnerable groups.	A small number
Parental consent requirements pose risks and challenges	Implementing proper parental consent and managing at scale is complex for services.	A small number
Increased parental burden is proportionate	Increased burden on parents to manage consent is either appropriate or should be encouraged as parents better suited to make this decision.	Few
Raising age undermines child autonomy and digital literacy	Increasing the age of digital consent could reduce children’s autonomy and limit opportunities to develop digital skills and responsible online behaviour.	Very few
Children lack capacity for informed digital consent	Children under the proposed age are not sufficiently mature or knowledgeable to provide informed digital consent, supporting higher age limits and parental involvement.	Very few
Migration to unsafe or unregulated platforms increases risk	Restricting access to mainstream platforms may drive children to less regulated or more dangerous online spaces, increasing exposure to harm and reducing opportunities for help-seeking.	Very few
Improved digital literacy and guidance are essential	Effective implementation depends on clear guidance, support, and education for parents, children, and the public to ensure digital literacy and safe access under new consent requirements.	Very few
Uncertainty about digital consent risks and requirements	There is a lack of understanding about the risks, burdens, or meaning of digital consent, with some not feeling informed enough to comment.	Very few
Support for stricter age verification	Support for stricter age verification, noting in some cases that this may decrease online harms and illegal activity, and may create new jobs.	Very few
Negative impact on schools and education	Schools and educational staff may face challenges in providing digital resources and managing compliance, complicating educational processes and increasing administrative burdens.	Very few
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question	Few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes	Very few

Consultation response – question 10

1. What should be considered to make raising the digital age of consent effective and workable? For example, suitable approaches to verify users’ ages (including where parental consent is required) or suitable approaches to verify a parent or carer’s identity, age and relationship to the child.

Summary of findings

The most common response related to the importance of robust age verification in ensuring that raising the age of digital consent would be effective and workable. Specific examples in the responses included providing a form of photo identification to prove age and the need for age verification to be user friendly. Some respondents referenced parental consent and involvement, including the use of parental controls and broader engagement by parents and guardians, as key to making a higher age of digital consent effective and workable.

A small number of respondents to this question were sceptical or opposed to raising the age of digital consent. These responses referenced concerns related to effectiveness of age verification and noted that the responsibility for keeping children safe online should sit with parents. These responses also noted enforcement, privacy concerns and the risk of government overreach as reasons to oppose setting a higher age of digital consent.

A small number of respondents to the question supported robust enforcement measures and legal accountability as factors to consider when raising the age of digital consent, including fines for non-compliant companies.

Few respondents referenced alternative approaches with these answers referencing device level restrictions, social media age restrictions and more robust content moderation.

Very few respondents referenced children’s wellbeing as a consideration for when raising the age, including their welfare and mental health. A small number of respondents noted that children’s rights and online safety should be balanced against wider considerations, including the right to privacy and the rights of adults.

International alignment was referenced by a very few respondents to this question, with several answers referring to Australia’s approach specifically and recommending that government learn from other countries who have increased the digital age of consent.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response share
Need for robust, age verification	Effective online safety requires strong, reliable, and user-friendly age verification systems that minimize data collection, with photo ID and verifiable age consent frequently suggested.	Some
Parental consent and involvement in online safety	Verified parental consent, robust parental controls, and clear accountability are essential for online safety, with systems that empower parents and respect diverse family structures while avoiding sole reliance on parental responsibility.	Some
Scepticism and opposition to raising digital age of consent	Raising the digital age of consent is opposed due to concerns about effectiveness, enforceability, privacy, government overreach, circumvention risks, and potential negative impacts, with preference for education or parental control over exclusion.	A small number
Enforcement and legal accountability for online safety	Clear legal frameworks, strong regulation, consistent enforcement, and meaningful penalties for non-compliance are necessary to ensure effectiveness and accountability, with technology companies and platforms bearing primary responsibility.	A small number
Balancing child protection with rights and inclusion	Online safety measures should balance child protection with both adult privacy rights and children’s rights, to access information, avoid exclusion or ‘over blocking’, and consider welfare, mental health, and digital divides	A small number
Importance of education and digital literacy	Comprehensive education and digital literacy campaigns for children, parents, and schools are vital to raise awareness of online risks, digital consent, and safe internet use, complementing technical and legal measures.	Few
Alternative and complementary approaches to online safety	Complementary strategies such as risk-based or tiered verification, age-restricted device-level controls, banning smartphones for certain ages, content moderation, kid-safe platforms, and investment in offline activities should be considered to enhance child safety and wellbeing.	Few
Child safety, wellbeing, and development as primary goal	The overarching priority should be the safety, protection, and developmental needs of children, including considering their perspectives in policy design and avoiding unintended negative consequences.	Very few
Multi-stakeholder cooperation for online safety	Effective implementation depends on cooperation between government, industry, parents, schools, and the community, potentially through national schemes or digital IDs with independent oversight and ongoing stakeholder consultation.	Very few
International alignment and learning from best practices	Implementation should align with international best practices and standards, learning from countries with similar policies to ensure consistency, avoid loopholes, and prevent circumvention via foreign platforms.	Very few
Phased and risk-based implementation of online safety measures	Phased, proportionate, and flexible implementation, with stricter checks for high-risk activities and lighter measures for low-risk or educational platforms, can help ensure workability, inclusivity, and minimal disruption.	Very few
Safeguarding vulnerable and marginalized children online	Policies must prioritize safeguarding vulnerable and marginalized children, including those in care or complex family situations, also taking into account the challenge of abusive parents, ensuring that these children are not excluded from support or online communities.	Very few
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question	Few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes. Sub-themes in responses reference uncertainty or being unsure on considerations	Very few

Consultation response – question 11

1. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “There is a case for changing the digital age of consent for some online services but not others”?

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
“There is a case for changing the digital age of consent for some online services but not others”	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
Strongly agree	14%	2,963	15%	1,420
Somewhat agree	23%	4,794	23%	2,153
Neither agree nor disagree	10%	2,144	9%	825
Somewhat disagree	10%	2,176	11%	1,045
Strongly disagree	33%	7,061	34%	3,186
Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer	10%	2,066	8%	698
	answered	21,204		9,327
	skipped	3,330		734

Email responses on age of digital consent

Summary of responses

• The responses showed a clear divide between those who viewed a higher digital age of consent as a necessary protective measure and those who considered it an ineffective or disproportionate tool. Most industry respondents and some civil liberties organisations, children’s rights organisations and young people generally opposed raising the digital age of consent, although often for different reasons. Parent groups, some parliamentarians, public campaigners and some health-related respondents were more likely to support raising it to 16 or aligning it with wider age restrictions on social media.

• A common theme across the evidence was that the digital age of consent was not generally seen as a complete solution in itself. Even among respondents who supported raising the threshold, there was a strong view that any change would need to sit alongside wider measures such as safety-by-design, stronger enforcement, digital literacy, parental tools, restrictions on children’s access to social media, harmful or addictive functions and targeted advertising and profiling, and clearer platform accountability.

• Responses from children and young people tended to oppose increasing age thresholds. They recognised risks associated with social media and other online services, but also identified benefits including connection, learning, identity formation, community support and access to mental health or wellbeing resources. Young people tended to favour more targeted interventions, such as restrictions on algorithms, safer default settings, and better digital literacy education.

Perceived benefits of raising the digital age of consent

• Supporters argued that raising the digital age of consent to 16 or above would give parents or responsible adults more control over how platforms use their children’s personal data. If a parent refused to grant permission, it could help limit the collection and profiling of children’s data for the purposes of targeted advertising, content recommendations and any consent-based processing activities.  They considered that children under 16 may not be able to meaningfully understand or consent to complex data practices, particularly where consent is sought through lengthy terms and conditions.

• Some respondents operating in the field of healthcare mentioned the mental and physical health risks to children arising from algorithmic targeting and repeated exposure to harmful content. This group felt that a higher age of consent would send a clear signal that all children’s data, including teenagers, should be subject to stronger protections.

Perceived risks and unintended consequences of raising the digital age of consent

• Opponents argued that the digital age of consent is a data protection mechanism rather than an online safety access tool. They noted that Article 8 of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) sets the age at which a child can provide their own consent for an Information Society Service (ISS) to  process their personal data where consent is the lawful basis for processing, not whether children can access social media or engage with certain features and functions. On this view, raising the threshold would not directly address harms associated with behavioural advertising, recommender systems and algorithmic amplification because children would still be exposed to these features if their parents were content to grant authority.

• A further concern was the burden to business. Businesses that responded noted that Article 8 of the UK GDPR applies to virtually all commercial online services that may be accessed by children, not only social media. They said that increasing the age would create significant compliance and operational burdens. These included the costs of building or expanding parental consent flows, verifying parent or responsible adult-child relationships, handling locked or disputed accounts, responding to higher customer support volumes, updating terms and privacy notices, adapting age assurance systems, and managing potential litigation arising from account closures.

• Several respondents said that raising the age could also affect some low-risk services that are beneficial to teenagers, including educational tools and health and fitness apps. They said that this could be disproportionate if the policy aim was focused on social media harms. Privacy rights groups added that if the changes were effectively enforced, a wide range of services would have to carry out age assurance, which could increase the amount of personal data being collected on web users for identification purposes and heighten privacy risks.

• Respondents also highlighted the risk of parental consent fatigue and other factors which might mean that parents were unwilling or unable to consent to multiple requests. If consent were not granted, some respondents highlighted risks for 13-15 years olds associated with not being able to engage fully with services they had become accustomed to. They said this could disproportionately affect LGBTQ+ young people, neurodivergent young people, children in isolated situations, those seeking mental health support, and children in complex or unsafe family circumstances.

• Some respondents interpreted raising the digital age of consent as equivalent to an access restriction or parental-authorisation requirement for children to use online services.

Implementation and enforcement issues

• Many businesses who responded considered parental consent difficult to operate at scale. Concerns included the difficulty of verifying parent/responsible adult-child relationships, the risk of excluding children whose parents are absent, unavailable, digitally excluded or unsafe. They also pointed to potential operational impacts, including locked accounts, increased customer support demand, and disputes over account access.

• Several respondents argued that a higher threshold could lead to circumvention rather than reduced use. They suggested that children may lie about their age, use virtual private networks (VPNs), migrate to less regulated spaces, or seek access through routes with weaker safeguards. Young people’s responses particularly emphasised that bans or blanket thresholds may not stop use and could increase risk-taking or reduce openness with parents and trusted adults.

• Several respondents also noted that consent is only one lawful basis for processing personal data. Platforms may rely on other lawful bases, such as legitimate interests or contractual necessity in certain circumstances. This led some respondents to note that raising the digital age of consent may have limited practical effect unless accompanied by clearer rules that profiling, targeting and recommender systems can never be pursued in reliance on these other legal grounds for processing.

Alternative approaches proposed by respondents

• Respondents proposed a range of alternatives to raising the digital age of consent. These included stronger enforcement of data protection rules on fairness, transparency, data minimisation, and privacy by design requirements. Some called for the ICO’s Age Appropriate Design Code, which provides guidance for organisations on how to comply with these requirements, to be placed on a statutory footing.

• Others called for a blanket ban on targeted advertising and profiling of children, improved parental controls, and better digital literacy education for parents and children.

• There was some support for tiered or differentiated approaches, with different ages of consent for different services according to their level of risk. However, several industry respondents opposed this approach, arguing that it could create legal uncertainty and be difficult to apply consistently, especially if the processing activities and risk levels of certain services evolved over time.

Restricting access to services based on features and functionalities

In this section of the consultation, we sought views on features and functionalities that may be particularly risky for children. We asked about features such as livestreaming, sending nude images and videos, disappearing content, connecting or talking to strangers, and location sharing. 

The consultation asked for views on whether children should be restricted from accessing these features and functionalities and, if so, at what age. The consultation also considered the impacts of any potential restrictions.

Consultation response – question 12

1. Some online services allow their users to engage with the following functionalities. Do you think these functionalities should be age restricted so that children below a certain age cannot engage with them? (Please select all that apply)
   a. Live streaming
   b. Ability to send nude images or videos
   c. Disappearing content
   d. Location sharing
   e. Connecting or talking to strangers
   f. None of the above
   g. Other (please specify)
   h. Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer

Some online services allow their users to engage with the following functionalities. Do you think these functionalities should be age restricted so that children below a certain age cannot engage with them? (Please select all that apply)	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
Live streaming	66%	14,222	84%	7,931
Ability to send nude images or videos	79%	17,072	92%	8,654
Disappearing content	66%	14,188	85%	8,021
Location sharing	64%	13,808	77%	7,297
Connecting or talking to strangers	71%	15,252	89%	8,387
Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer	2%	510	1%	120
None of the above	13%	2,708	5%	483
Other (please specify):	12%	2,501	8%	773
	answered	21,505		9,451
	skipped	3,029		610

Summary of ‘other’ responses
A small number of respondents provided additional context to their responses with free text. The themes below each represent a very few responses.

Respondents expressed support for ensuring age restrictions were risk-based. Other responses called for greater platform accountability with mixed views on whether this should be voluntary or legislated.

A share of responses raised additional functionalities they consider pose a risk to children, including addictive algorithms and infinite scrolling, platform advertising and children’s use of AI tools. There was also criticism related to unclear definitions of the risky functionalities the government consulted on.

However, there was also push back against government intervention on the basis that parents should be responsible for restricting their children’s access to risky functionalities through parental controls and supervision, and concerns about privacy and freedoms through the increased use of age assurance.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response share
Support for age restrictions on risky functionalities	There is support for implementing age restrictions on risky functionalities that expose children to harmful content, pose risks to their safety (such as location safety) or wellbeing, or have financial links (such as making purchases in games).	Very few
Parents should be responsible for restricting their child’s access to risky functionalities	Instead of government intervention, parents should be responsible for monitoring and restricting children’s access to risky functionalities, through parental controls and supervision.	Very few
Concern about potential negative impacts of implementing age restrictions on risky functionalities	Concern that the implementation and enforcement of restrictions on risky functionalities could have negative impacts primarily on freedom, including from perceived government overreach, and privacy, including from the increased use of age assurance.	Very few
Criticism of the approach to framing and defining risky functionalities	Criticism regarding framing of the consultation question and unclear definitions of online functionalities and age restrictions.	Very few
Support for contextual and risk-based restrictions on risky functionalities	There is support for restrictions on risky functionalities with the caveat that any restrictions should consider the varying level of risk posed by different functionalities and potential appropriate use cases.	Very few
Support for platform accountability in protecting children online	There is support for platform accountability for protecting children, with mixed views on if this should be voluntary or underpinned by legislation / regulation.	Very few
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question	Very few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes. Subthemes include addictive algorithms and continuous scrolling.	Very few

Consultation response – question 13

1. Based on your previous answers, please specify your preferred minimum age for each of the functionalities below:
   a. Live streaming
   b. Ability to send nude images or videos
   c. Disappearing content
   d. Location sharing
   e. Connecting or talking to strangers
   f. None of the above
   g. Other (please specify)

Feature	Responses	Most Supported Age	2nd Most Supported Age	Top theme from free-text comments
Livestreaming	13,374	16 (59%)	18 (33%)	Increases risk of harm to children online.
Nude images and videos	15,370	18 (70%)	16 (17%)	Sending nude images or videos should be completely banned for all ages.
Disappearing content	12,952	16 (51%)	18 (41%)	Should be completely banned due to safety concerns.
Location sharing	12,708	16 (47%)	18 (41%)	Sharing with parents or guardians should be exempt from any ban.
Talking to strangers	14,175	18 (51%)	16 (38%)	Minimum age should be 18, and children should never connect with strangers online.

Note: For more detailed statistics on supported ages, please see the respective feature summaries below. Most respondents to this question provided a numerical age response only. A smaller number also provided additional free-text commentary for each feature (ranging from 3% to 8% of total respondents, depending on functionality). Descriptors used in both the age-only and free-text summaries reflect the proportion of all respondents that raised specific themes. The number of free-text respondents is indicated for each feature.

Livestreaming

13,374 respondents provided age-only responses for the age at which live streaming should be restricted. Many said live streaming should be restricted for those under 16, some said under 18, and a very few respondents suggested other ages, including 13, 14, 15, and 21.

378 individuals provided free-text answers. A very few respondents included additional context, indicating they believed that livestreaming increases the risk of harm to children online, citing concerns including online abuse and exploitation, privacy risks and exposure to inappropriate or harmful content on streams. These respondents highlighted that given difficulties moderating this type of content, the risks of livestreaming outweigh the benefits. A very few respondents said that the content and additional context should be considered as factors when setting a minimum age for livestreaming. A very few respondents also said that parental controls could complement restrictions, for example, by enabling younger children to access this functionality with parental consent.

Minimum Age to Send Nude Images and Videos

15,370 respondents provided age-only responses for the minimum age for the ability to send nude images or videos. Many said the ability to send nude images or videos should be restricted for those under 18, a small number said under 16, a few said under 21 and a very few suggested 25. A very few respondents suggested a complete prohibition of sending nude images or videos for all ages.

1,288 respondents provided free-text responses. A very few highlighted risks of harm, such as exploitation or emotional harm, that the ability to send nude images or videos present for children.

Additional justifications to minimum age selections were also provided. A very few said the minimum age should be 18, to align with existing laws regarding adult content and very few said a minimum age of 16, in line with the age of consent.

Disappearing Content

12,952 respondents provided an age-only response on the minimum age for disappearing content. Around half supported a minimum age of 16, while some supported 18. A very few respondents suggested other ages, including 15, 17, and 21.

641 respondents provided additional free-text commentary. A very few respondents believed that disappearing content should be completely banned due to safety concerns. A very few stated that disappearing content increases risks of harm to children, such as bullying and exploitation, noting that it can be harder to identify and tackle harmful content that is immediately deleted. A very few expressed specific support for a minimum age of 18 or older, while a very few supported 16. A very few expressed uncertainty about what is meant by ‘disappearing content’ and what would be captured by any restrictions.

Location Sharing

12,708 respondents provided age-only responses for the age at which location sharing should be restricted. Some said location sharing should be restricted for those under 16, some said under 18, and few said another age between 13, 14, 15 and 21.

689 respondents provided free-text responses. A very few respondents included additional context, indicating that any age restriction on location sharing should be accompanied with an exemption, specifically to allow children to share their location with trusted contacts, such as parents or guardians.

Very few said that location sharing poses privacy and safety risks for children and that it can facilitate harm such as stalking or bullying. A very few respondents said that there should be a complete ban for all ages, due to privacy and safety concerns. A very few referenced “Any age”, “All ages” or similar terms; however, given the framing, it was not possible to determine whether these respondents intended to advocate for a total ban on the functionality or for no age restriction at all.

Talking to strangers

14,175 respondents provided age-only responses for the age at which connecting or talking to strangers online should be restricted. Around half said the ability to talk to strangers should be restricted for those under 18, some said under 16, very few suggested other minimum ages including 13, 14, 15, 17 and 21.

537 respondents provided free-text responses. A very few respondents said that the minimum age should be set at 18 with added context that children should never be able to connect with strangers online. A very few highlighted that communicating with strangers online poses risks to children such as grooming, exploitation, and scams.

Very few suggested that consideration should be given to the content or context of a service when establishing a minimum age for communicating with strangers. A very few advocated for a parental consent requirement, whereby children would be permitted to connect with strangers online but only with explicit parental approval. It was noted this could provide flexibility in allowing younger children to access this functionality.

Very few referenced “Any age”, “All ages” or similar terms; however, given the framing, it was not possible to determine whether these respondents intended to advocate for a total ban on the functionality or for no age restriction at all.

Consultation response – question 14

1. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “Restricting children’s access to these features/ functionalities, would provide for a safer online experience for children”. Features/functionalities include live streaming, the ability to send nude images or videos, disappearing content, location sharing and connecting or talking to strangers.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “Restricting children’s access to these features/ functionalities, would provide for a safer online experience for children”. Features/functionalities include live streaming, the ability to send nude images or videos, disappearing content, location sharing and connecting or talking to strangers.	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
Strongly agree	63%	13,531	82%	7,727
Somewhat agree	12%	2,647	8%	768
Neither agree nor disagree	4%	863	2%	153
Somewhat disagree	4%	836	1%	111
Strongly disagree	15%	3,277	6%	603
Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer	2%	427	1%	98
	answered	21,581		9,460
	skipped	2,953		601

Consultation response – question 15

1. What do you think the impacts would be if some online services were required to introduce age restrictions on specific features and functionalities? For example, impacts on the safety and wellbeing of children, or the impact for parents and carers, as well as other users. You could also comment on the impact on all users’ privacy and data or on business costs, revenue, and innovation.

Summary of findings:

Some of the respondents reported that age restrictions on specific features and functions would lead to enhanced child safety and wellbeing by reducing exposure to harms such as harmful content or bullying. However, a small number raised concerns related to the effectiveness and enforcement of age restrictions, expressing views that children will find ways to circumvent the restrictions. A small number of respondents highlighted that age restrictions could reduce children’s access to beneficial uses of these features, such as social connection, and push them into riskier, unregulated parts of the internet. The potential impact on adults’ access to these functionalities was also highlighted.

A small number also noted concerns with data collection or breaches and user privacy. A few advocated for a more proportionate and targeted approach to restrictions which considers the risk level of a feature. These respondents considered that interventions should be targeted at high-risk features, although it was noted that some risky features can have benefits, for example location sharing.

A small number of respondents considered that age restrictions on specific features and functionalities would provide positive reassurance for parents, helping to reduce the burden currently placed on parents and carers in ensuring their children have healthy online lives.

In contrast, a few respondents reported that primary responsibility for children’s access to risky functionalities should lie with parents, focusing on oversight and the use of parental controls. A very few suggested that better education for both parents and children would be more effective for improving wellbeing than banning high-risk features and functionalities. These respondents also cited education as key to preparing children to navigate the online world.

Impacts on businesses, especially small businesses, and concerns regarding services choosing to leave the UK market were also highlighted by a small number of respondents as a potential consequence of restrictions on risky functionalities. A very few thought that the impact would drive positive innovation in safety features and hold platforms responsible for providing a safe environment.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
Enhanced child safety and wellbeing	Age restrictions on specific online features were seen as significantly improving child safety and wellbeing by reducing exposure to harmful content, exploitation, and cyberbullying.	Some
Concern about the wider use of age assurance to enforce minimum age restrictions on risky functionalities	There were concerns about the risks wider use of age assurance, required to enforce minimum age restrictions on risky functionalities, may pose. Notably in relation to user privacy, increased data collection and the risk of data breaches.	A small number
Effectiveness and enforcement challenges	Age restrictions are difficult to enforce, and children will find ways to circumvent them.	A small number
Positive societal and parental outcomes	Age restrictions would enhance children’s wellbeing by encouraging healthy offline activities, which would also improve social cohesion. Restrictions would also provide positive reassurance for parents and reduce the burden on them to provide a healthy online life for their children.	A small number
Disruption to business	Age restrictions would raise compliance costs for businesses, especially smaller businesses, cause them to lose revenue through reduced number of users, and cause some services to leave the UK market at disadvantage to UK users. These concerns are balanced against the benefit in protecting children.	A small number
Preventing access to safe and beneficial features for both children and adults	Age restrictions will push children into riskier, unregulated parts of the internet, prevent them from accessing the benefits of features such as reducing isolation and access to support, and will prevent legitimate adult users from accessing these features too due to privacy concerns.	A small number
Parents should be responsible for their children’s access to risky functionalities	Instead of government intervention on risky functions, it was suggested that primary responsibility for children’s access to risky functionalities should lie with parents, focusing on oversight and the use of parental controls.	Few
Proportionate, targeted restrictions preferred	Age restrictions should be targeted at high-risk features to protect children from these risks whilst allowing both children and adults to enjoy the benefits of low-risk online features. Some concerns were raised about the benefits of some ‘high-risk’ features that children would be prevented from accessing, such as parents tracking their children’s location for safety.	Few
Concerns surrounding the impact of restrictions on freedom of expression	Age restrictions, and adults’ reluctance to undergo age verification, will restrict children and adults’ freedom of expression.	Few
Educating parents and children as a more effective method of improving wellbeing than banning high-risk features	Educating parents and child to increase their understanding of how to avoid risks online will enhance children’s wellbeing whilst avoiding issues with bans, such as enforcement and privacy concerns. Education will also prepare children for negotiating the online world once they are adults.	Very few
Encouraging innovation in platform safety features	Restricting high-risk features would hold platforms responsible for providing a safe environment and would drive positive innovation in safety features and age assurance.	Very few
A blanket ban for children to access social media is the most effective solution	A complete ban on social media for children is the most effective solution to improving children’s wellbeing, rather than targeted age restrictions.	Very few
Other regulated industries should be used as an example for age-restricted access to social media	Other regulated industries, such as sale of alcohol or tobacco, can be an example for how to approach children’s access to social media. This can be both a justification for age-restricted features, or an argument for alternative approaches like blanket bans.	Very few
No reason given	These responses did not provide substantive answers to the question.	Very few
Other	Sub-themes extracted from ‘other’ included the concern that the list of features and functionalities are too broad in the question - specifically, there are much stronger feelings towards restricting the ‘Ability to send nude images or videos’ whereas there are pros/cons listed regarding ‘Location Sharing’ and ‘Live Streaming’ restrictions.
Other sub-themes included a greater emphasis on tacking perpetrators of online crime over regulation, and that restriction should be the role of the tech companies/ service provider.	Very few

Email responses on restricting access to services based on features and functionalities

Summary of responses:

Support for restrictions on risky features and functionalities

• Overall, there was broad support for restrictions on risky features and functionalities. There was recognition that while there are some benefits, such as social connection and creativity, these features can increase the risk of harm to children and young people. However, there were different views on which specific features should be restricted and to what extent. Some caution was expressed about ensuring that any approach government takes can be kept up to date as new risks or features emerge.

Support for a graduated approach

• Across industry and civil society organisations there was support for offering graduated, age-appropriate access to risky features and functionalities instead of blanket restrictions, to balance harm reduction with benefits of these features. Many organisations noted that any restrictions on risky functionalities should be risk-based, proportionate, and grounded in robust evidence. For instance, by restricting a functionality for younger children but providing access, with safeguards, for older children. This was described as more proportionate than blanket restrictions, helping to minimise some unintended consequences such as cliff edges and displacement, and recognising the different developmental needs of children as they grow up.

Other high-risk functionalities

• In addition to the features that the consultation sought views on, a number of respondents raised other features and functionalities they argued were high-risk. This included end-to-end encryption, and on-platform virtual spending and gifting.

Functionalities in context

• Industry stakeholders highlighted that the risk of harm posed by specific features and functionalities can vary based on context and design, with some favouring no restrictions whatsoever. It was noted in responses that functionalities are not necessarily inherently risky, with blanket feature restrictions therefore seen as overly broad and blunt. In recognition of this, the preference of some respondents was for restrictions to be delivered through the existing regulatory framework provided by the Online Safety Act, such as through risk assessments. However, this was not the case for all industry organisations – with some expressing that they did not support restrictions for any functionalities.

Voluntary protections

• Some industry organisations highlighted existing voluntary protections that have already been implemented such as default settings on children’s accounts, parental controls, and age-based restrictions. These were sometimes suggested as tools the government could use to deliver graduated and age-appropriate access to specific risky features.

Impacts on industry

• A range of potential impacts on industry were also raised, including costs associated with additional compliance. Associated costs included increased requirements to deploy age assurance on restricted functionalities or technical updates to a platform to support restrictions. It was noted that these costs would be particularly burdensome for SMEs. A small number of services also highlighted the risk that these costs may lead to services deciding to implement service-level restrictions for children or remove their services from the UK altogether.

Age assurance

• Some respondents highlighted risks around the use of age assurance to enforce restrictions on functionalities and implications for privacy and increased data collection. It was also noted that this could increase friction for adult users as they would also be required to engage with any new age checks.

Innovation

• Some industry organisations highlighted concerns that restrictions may limit the ability or incentives for services to innovate. However, one service noted that a features-led approach may be more likely to support the innovation of age-appropriate design to enable services to provide low risk offerings to young people.

Impact on gaming services

• A number of gaming industry respondents raised concern about an overly broad scope and argued their services should be excluded. One respondent argued that features such as stranger pairing are fundamentally different in video gaming than in social media and carry lower risk. Another respondent noted gaming is subject to the 2026 PEGI reforms, which rate unrestricted online communication PEGI 18 and loot boxes PEGI 16, and argued that this was the right model for targeted, proportionate, feature-level regulation.

Support for restrictions

• Many civil society and child safety organisations expressed support for restricting risky features and functionalities to u16s and, in some cases, to u18s. There was also strong support from a campaign of 33,000 responses to the consultation. One respondent agreed with restricting high-risk functionalities and proposed a tiered approach for 13–15-year-olds and 16–17-year-olds. Another respondent supported age restrictions on risky functionalities at age 16 but noted that video communication features must be treated differently to protect Deaf BSL users who rely on video calls as their primary communication medium.

Harms enabled by risky functionalities

• Many responses suggested that risky functionalities directly enable and amplify various harms to children, including grooming, child sexual abuse, coercion, sextortion, and bullying, and that restricting them would materially reduce children’s exposure to harm.

Functionalities raised

• The most common support was for restrictions on communicating with strangers, disappearing content and the ability to send nude images or videos. There were more mixed views on whether to restrict livestreaming and location sharing. Some respondents suggested additional risky functionalities that should be subject to restrictions, including end-to-end encrypted messaging and financial features such as gifting or spending. Another respondent also noted that algorithmic content feeds pushed content from strangers to children. Organisations argued that restrictions on risky functionalities should be enforced by strong age assurance measures. One respondent advocated for features that enable children to communicate with strangers to be disabled as a default app-level setting and also noted that adults, with the exception of family, should not be watching children livestreaming.

Support for restrictions alongside wider measures

• While supportive of restrictions, many organisations also noted that restrictions would be most effective when coupled with wider changes such as ensuring services are safer by design and enforcing minimum age requirements. One respondent argued that restrictions are most effective when paired with plain-English explanations of the harm patterns they address, on the basis that children are more likely to respect rules when they understand how a feature can be used for grooming, coercion, or exploitation.

‘Addiction’, compulsive design and displacement

In this section, the consultation sought views on what design features could keep children online for longer, and which of these features should be age restricted and at what age. The consultation also asked about related interventions to reduce the amount of time children spend online, ranging from daily screen time limits to restrictions on overnight access on specific apps. Lastly, the consultation asked what the impacts would be if online platforms were required to restrict specific persuasive features or functionalities, or to introduce time limits.

Consultation response – question 16

1. The following design features are sometimes known as ‘persuasive’, meaning they may encourage children to stay online for longer. From the following list, please select the ones you think are particularly ‘persuasive’ to children: (Please select all that apply).

The following design features are sometimes known as ‘persuasive’, meaning they may encourage children to stay online for longer. From the following list, please select the ones you think are particularly ‘persuasive’ to children: (Please select all that apply).	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
Infinite scrolling	81%	17,393	90%	8,494
Autoplay	70%	15,169	81%	7,646
Affirmation features (e.g. ‘likes’, comments)	66%	14,245	80%	7,570
Alerts and push notifications	67%	14,392	79%	7,416
Content recommendation algorithms (these are algorithms which provide personalised recommendations on a user’s feed)	78%	16,857	87%	8,247
Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer	3%	706	1%	128
None of the above	7%	1,428	3%	309
Other (please specify):	7%	1,520	5%	466
	answered	21,554		9,450
	skipped	2,980		611

Summary of ‘other’ responses

A few respondents provided additional context to their responses with free text. The themes below each represent a very few responses.

Respondents indicated that persuasive design features affect not only children but also adults and vulnerable groups, suggesting that any regulatory measures in this area should be applied broadly.  Concerns in relation to gamification features, particularly where in-app spending or gambling-like mechanics are encouraged within the service. A very few respondents highlighted algorithmic content curation as a highly persuasive mechanism for keeping children online for longer, while few identified the leveraging of social validation as similarly influential.

Respondents highlighted concerns that the persuasive features can entice children into viewing low-quality, sensational, harmful or misinformation content. In addition to this, respondents cited concerns related to how children’s data is used for targeted advertising, noting that tracking mechanisms and cookies can be persuasive features that encourage children to stay online longer by engaging with content or products.

Respondents raised that limiting children’s time online should be the responsibility of the parent or caregiver, rather than requiring government intervention. This was supported by comments that suggested promoting education on how to use existing parental controls. A very few expressed general scepticism on the effectiveness of government regulation. A very few noted that external factors, such as lack of offline alternatives and individual difference contribute to children’s online engagement beyond persuasive design features

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response share
Persuasive features affect all age groups, not just children	Persuasive design features impact not only children but also adults and vulnerable groups, suggesting that regulation should apply broadly	Very few
Parental responsibility and controls are preferred over regulation	Managing children’s exposure to persuasive design features should be the responsibility of parents, with parental controls, education, and engagement preferred over government regulation.	Very few
Gamification and reward mechanics prolong online engagement	Gamified features such as rewards, achievements, streaks, daily login bonuses, intermittent reinforcement, and progress tracking are highly persuasive in motivating children to prolong their online engagement.	Very few
Algorithmic recommendations increase online engagement	Algorithmic content recommendations, infinite scrolling, autoplay, and personalised feeds are highly persuasive mechanisms that encourage children to spend more time online by continuously serving tailored and engaging material.	Very few
Social influence and FOMO drive prolonged use	Features leveraging social validation, peer activity notifications, influencers, chat functionality, sharing, and fear of missing out (FOMO) are especially persuasive for children, encouraging them to stay online longer.	Very few
Targeted advertising and tracking exploit children’s data	Targeted advertising, personalised ads, tracking mechanisms, cookies, and commercial exploitation of children’s data are persuasive features that encourage children to stay online and engage with content or products.	Very few
Scepticism about government regulation effectiveness	There is scepticism regarding the unique persuasiveness of online features for children and concerns about the necessity, effectiveness, and potential overreach of government regulation.	Very few
Loot boxes and microtransactions encourage excessive spending	Loot boxes, gambling-like features, microtransactions, in-app purchases, and reward prompts are highly persuasive and potentially harmful, encouraging children to spend more time and money online.	Very few
Short-form and auto-playing videos	Short-form videos, reels, YouTube Shorts, and auto-playing media are persuasive, prompting children to consume content continuously without breaks.	Very few
Engaging visuals and interactive elements retain children’s attention	Bright colours, pop culture icons, stimulating visuals, casino-style graphics, previews, graphical/audio popups, emojis, and interactive adverts are persuasive elements that attract and retain children’s attention online.	Very few
Clickbait thumbnails and sensationalised, low-quality harmful content	Sensationalised or misleading headlines, images, or thumbnails designed to grab children’s attention and entice them to click on a link. Low-quality, sensational, harmful or AI made content, often promoted by algorithms, is seen as persuasive and potentially damaging to children	Very few
Harmful content	Harmful content such as content showing death, harm, violence, misinformation, encourages dangerous behaviour, misogyny or pornography.	Very few
Societal and environmental factors contribute to online engagement	External factors such as lack of offline alternatives, parental use of devices as childcare, economic hardship, and individual differences contribute to children’s online engagement beyond persuasive design features.	Very few
Dark Patterns	User interfaces intentionally crafted to trick or coerce users into taking actions they did not intend to take	Very few
Disbelief in existence of addictive functionalities	Belief that functionalities (such as auto play, infinite scrolling, alerts and notifications and recommender systems) are not addictive and should not be regulated	Very few
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question	Very few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes. Subthemes include acknowledgement that features are useful and content is harmful, a complete ban for smartphones and/or social media for children,
AI and AI Chatbots as a persuasive design feature and concerns around data collection and privacy	Very few

Consultation response – question 17

1. Which of these features do you think should be age restricted? (Please select all that apply)

Which of these features do you think should be age restricted? (Please select all that apply)	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
Infinite scrolling	64%	13,702	82%	7,710
Autoplay	57%	12,288	75%	7,036
Affirmation features (e.g. ‘likes’, comments)	55%	11,771	73%	6,888
Alerts and push notifications	55%	11,784	72%	6,821
Content recommendation algorithms (these are algorithms which provide personalised recommendations on a user’s feed)	64%	13,685	81%	7,619
Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer	3%	599	2%	160
None of the above – they should not be age restricted	22%	4,659	8%	788
Other (please specify):	8%	1,650	5%	452
	answered	21,450		9,429
	skipped	3,084		632

Summary of ‘other’ responses

A few respondents provided additional context to their responses with free text. The themes below each represent a very few responses.

Respondents recommended age restrictions on addictive features for all ages, not just for children. There was also support for age restrictions on harmful digital features, and parental controls for children’s online access. Responses also called for restrictions on children’s devices and internet access.

On the other hand, there were respondents who opposed age restrictions, as well as responses expressing uncertainty about age restrictions.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
Age restrictions on addictive features should be for all ages	Bans or age restrictions on addictive features should be for all ages, not just children.	Very few
Support for age restrictions on harmful digital features	Support for implementing age restrictions or bans on features like algorithms, infinite scrolling, autoplay, content recommendations, gambling-like mechanics, advertising, short videos, reward systems, and dark patterns to protect children from risks and exploitation.	Very few
Opposition to age restrictions	Opposition to age restrictions for children and suggestion that there should be the option to turn these off if the user wishes.	Very few
Parental control over children’s online access	Parental controls and user empowerment should be prioritised over blanket age restrictions, allowing parents and guardians to decide which online features their children can access.	Very few
Ban or restrict children’s device and internet access	Support imposing age restrictions or outright bans on internet access, smartphone ownership, and wireless devices for children.	Very few
Uncertainty about age restrictions	Unsure as to which features should be age restricted.	Very few
Age restriction on financial and legal features	Features involving financial transactions, in-app purchases, loot boxes, gifting, and legally binding actions should be age restricted to protect minors from exploitation.	Very few
Support for effective and privacy-preserving age restrictions	Advocates for restrictions that are implemented with effective and privacy preserving age assurance methods.	Very few
Support for time-based usage limits from platforms or devices	Support for time-based usage limits from platforms or devices. This could also include limits on access during particular hours, such as nighttime.	Very few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes	Very few
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question	Very few

Consultation response – question 18

1. Based on your previous answers, please specify your preferred minimum age for each of the features below:
   a. Infinite scrolling
   b. Autoplay
   c. Affirmation features (e.g. ‘likes’, comments)
   d. Alerts and push notifications
   e. Content recommendation algorithms (these are algorithms which provide personalised recommendations on a user’s feed)
   f. None of the above – they should not be age restricted
   g. Other (please specify)

Feature	Responses	Most Supported Age	2nd Most Supported Age	Top theme from free-text comments
Infinite scrolling	13,024	16 (57%)	18 (27%)	Infinite scrolling should be banned or restricted for all ages
Autoplay	11,666	16 (59%)	18 (26%)	Autoplay should be banned or restricted for all users
Affirmation features	11,183	16 (61%)	18 (27%)	Ban or restrict affirmation features for all users
Alerts and push notifications	11,176	16 (60%)	18 (28%)	Notifications should be banned or heavily restricted for all ages
Content recommendation algorithms	12,885	16 (49%)	18 (36%)	Support for a complete ban on recommendation algorithms

Infinite scrolling - 12,566 respondents provided age-only responses for the age at which infinite scrolling should be permitted. Many said infinite scroll should be restricted for those under 16, some said under 18, and a very few respondents suggested other ages, including 13, 14, 15, and 21. 530 individuals provided free-text answers, some including additional context. A very few respondents indicated that infinite scroll should be banned or restricted for all ages because of their potential ‘addictive’ and harmful effects. A very few other responses included other options, including setting it off by default.

Autoplay - 11,387 respondents provided age-only responses for the age at which autoplay should be permitted. Many said autoplay should be restricted for those under 16, some said under 18, and a very few respondents suggested other ages, including 13, 14, 15, and 21. 341 respondents also provided free-text context to their answers, including a very few respondents who indicated that autoplay should be banned or made opt-in by default to preserve user control and prevent unintended exposure. A very few respondents also emphasised parental controls as the preferred primary means of managing autoplay, rather than imposing government age restrictions.

Affirmation features - 11,020 respondents provided age-only responses for the age at which affirmation features (e.g. likes and comments) should be permitted. Many said affirmation features should be restricted for those under 16, some said under 18, and a very few respondents suggested other ages, including 13, 14, 15, and 21. In addition, 209 free text responses were also received. A very few responses called for affirmation features to be banned or regulated for all users because of their potential negative psychological and social impacts. A very few respondents suggested either of the following – a minimum of age of 13 but with substantial redesign of features to enhance safety, and a preference for parental controls.

Alerts and push notifications - 10,993 respondents provided age-only responses for the age at which alerts and push notifications should be permitted. Many said alerts and push notifications should be restricted for those under 16, some said under 18, and a very few respondents suggested other ages, including 13, 14, 15, and 21. Also, 238 responses included free text. A very few respondents suggested that notifications should be banned or heavily restricted for all ages because they were harmful and intrusive. A very few responses also opined that essential or utility notifications (e.g. family communication or weather notifications) should be permitted for all ages, but non-essential notifications could be restricted.

Content recommendation algorithms - 12,520 respondents provided age-only responses for the age at which content recommendation algorithms should be permitted. Around half of respondents said they should be restricted for those under 16, while some recommended 18. As with other persuasive functionalities, a very few respondents suggested other ages, including 13, 14, 15, and 21. In addition, 440 responses included free text for additional context. A very few responses supported a complete ban on content recommendation algorithms for all ages due to concerns about manipulation, addiction, exposure to harmful content, societal division, and lack of trust in their safety.

Consultation response – question 19

1. Would you support the following restrictions for children’s access to online services? (Please select one)

Would you support the following restrictions for children’s access to online services? (Please select one)	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
Daily screen time limits for individual apps	2%	445	1%	125
Restricting overnight access for individual apps	3%	618	2%	224
Both – Daily screen time limits and overnight access for individual apps	63%	13,432	80%	7,541
I would not support either of them	30%	6,350	14%	1,348
Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer	3%	661	2%	185
	answered	21,506		9,423
	skipped	3,028		638

Consultation response – question 20

1. What do you think the impacts would be if online platforms were required to restrict specific features or functionalities, or to introduce time limits? For example, impacts on the safety and wellbeing of children, or the impact for parents and carers, as well as other users. You could also comment on the impact on all users’ privacy and data or on business costs, revenue, and innovation.

Summary of findings:

The most frequently cited theme among respondents related to child safety and well-being, with some respondents expressing the belief that restrictions and/or time limits would enhance children’s health, safety, sleep, academic performance and general well-being by reducing their exposure to harmful and/or addictive content. A small number of respondents stated that children’s social skills would prosper and that they would take part in more offline activities if these online platforms were required to restrict features or functionalities, or to introduce time limits. However, a small number of respondents raised concerns that restrictions should be imposed by parents/carers and not the government. A small number of respondents believed that it would be helpful if optional restriction tools for parents/carers were available by platforms and left to their discretion to apply. A small number of respondents noted operational concerns, and the risk that restrictions may stifle innovation and disproportionately burden small businesses.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
Improved child safety and wellbeing	Restricting online features or introducing time limits is expected to enhance children’s safety, mental health, sleep, academic performance, and overall wellbeing by reducing exposure to harmful content and addictive behaviours, and encouraging healthier offline activities.	Some
Parental responsibility versus government regulation	Managing children’s online activity should remain the responsibility of parents or carers, with platforms providing optional tools, and excessive government or platform regulation threatens autonomy and civil liberties.	A small number
Increased parental support and control	Platform-enforced restrictions and robust parental controls are seen as helpful tools for parents and carers to manage children’s online activity, enforce boundaries, reduce family conflict, and provide reassurance, though many prefer these tools to be optional or parent-controlled.	A small number
Encouragement of offline activities and social skills	Restrictions are expected to promote engagement in offline activities, foster real-life social interactions, and strengthen family and peer relationships, leading to broader societal benefits and benefits for children’s wellbeing	A small number
Business and innovation risks	Mandatory restrictions may increase compliance and operational costs, reduce platform revenue, stifle innovation, and disproportionately burden small businesses, potentially leading to market exits or reduced service provision.	A small number
Privacy and surveillance concerns	Implementing restrictions may require intrusive age or identity verification and increased data collection, raising significant concerns about privacy, data security, civil liberties, and potential government overreach.	A small number
Implementation and enforcement challenges	Restrictions are technically complex to enforce, with children and users likely to find ways to bypass controls, undermining effectiveness	A small number
Universal societal benefits	Restrictions could benefit all age groups, leading to a healthier, more productive, and safer society, and should be applied universally or be optional for adults as well.	Few
Ethical responsibility to limit harmful content	There is an ethical imperative to limit misinformation, harmful content including harmful advertising, features or content that maximise engagement and AI-generated content, especially for children	Few
Preference for stricter or total bans	Stronger interventions, including outright bans or higher minimum ages, are favoured by some who believe partial restrictions are inadequate for protecting children online.	Few
Risk of unintended consequences	Restrictions may lead to unintended effects such as children migrating to less safe platforms, fragmented digital experiences, increased vulnerability, or isolation from support networks.	Few
Potential negative impact on access and inclusion	Restrictions could inadvertently harm vulnerable, neurodivergent, or disabled children and adults who rely on online communities for support, and may hinder educational and legitimate uses.	Very few
Minimal or unclear impact	There is scepticism about evidence, or belief that restrictions would have little or no impact on user behaviour or outcomes.	Very few
Impact on adults having to age verify	Restricting online features or introducing time limits is expected to have a negative impact on adults having to verify their age.	Very few
Need for education and holistic approaches	Restrictions should be complemented by education, digital literacy, and broader support for children and parents to be truly effective in promoting online safety.	Very few
Respect for children’s rights and autonomy	It is important to respect children’s rights and autonomy, involve them in setting boundaries, and ensure restrictions do not unfairly limit access to support or communication.	Very few
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question	Very few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes	Very few

Email responses on ‘addiction’, compulsive design and displacement

Summary of responses:

Children’s time online

• Many respondents from civil society and child safety groups agreed that features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay, push notifications, affirmation features, and content recommendation algorithms can encourage children to spend longer online. Particularly where they remove natural stopping points or repeatedly draw users back into a service. Many acknowledged that they believed if children spent less time online, they would have more time for more enriching ‘offline’ activities, such as spending time outside.

Maximising engagement

• Several respondents argued that online platforms are purposely built to keep users, including children, online for longer and that the problem is the business models of “Big Tech”. Some respondents argued that these features are deliberately designed to maximise engagement and should not be available to under-16s. They noted that addictive features lead children to spend more time online than they want, contributing to disempowerment. They argued that platforms actively use algorithms and addictive design to maximise engagement and profit, and that this systemically exposes children to harm.
• Other responses identified recommender systems, behavioural tracking, real-time inference, and personalisation as “manipulative features subverting children’s autonomy” and noted how platforms are built to maximise engagement from children, not to protect wellbeing. Some of these responses also noted that bans do not address the business models and design choices that prioritise profit over safety.
• Several submissions drew links between tobacco, gambling, and social media use in its addictive nature.  One response characterised addictive algorithmic design — autoplay, infinite scroll, and personalised recommendation loops as a core driver of harm to children and drew an explicit analogy with the tobacco and gambling industries, describing a structural conflict between commercial incentives and child wellbeing.

Additional functionalities

• While these were not raised in the consultation, some respondents also referred to auto-queuing and penalties for non-engagement as part of the same set of persuasive or engagement-driven design choices.  This view was especially prominent among child safety, youth, and civil society respondents.

Features driving compulsive or excessive use

• A number of child safety, youth, mental health, and civil society respondents were particularly supportive of the view that these features can drive compulsive or excessive use. For example, one respondent argued that persuasive design features are linked both to chronic harms, such as compulsive behaviour, damaged relationships, and negative consequences for health and wellbeing, and to more acute harms where they encourage young people to spend more time on higher-risk services or increase exposure to harmful content. Other respondents supported stronger intervention on at least some persuasive or engagement-based features. Some were more supportive of parental controls as a means to curb excessive screen time.  One respondent highlighted compulsive gaming and night-time social media use as issues regularly raised in family court proceedings, noting impacts on sleep, play, and social functioning. A further response echoed this sentiment, explaining that youth workers have found persuasive and compulsive platform design has led to young people experiencing anxiety linked to notifications and visibility, sleep disruption, increased emotional dysregulation, and reduced physical activity.

• By contrast, many respondents agreed that these features may be persuasive but stressed that risk depends on the context of the online service rather than the feature alone. This was a common position among platforms and industry bodies. Respondents noted that some features can function differently depending on how they are designed, moderated, and deployed, and whether the wider service is structured around maximising engagement or delivering another purpose such as music, creative play, education, or shopping. Respondents also cautioned against treating all instances of the same feature as inherently harmful and noted that the specific features listed in the consultation are common across a wide range of digital services and are not unique to social media. It was suggested that policy should distinguish between persuasive design features found on social media and the use of similar features in other contexts. For example, one response focused on online learning specifically stressed how gamification features like “streaks”, challenges are not inherently harmful and so should be treated differently.

Displacement of high-quality content

• Themes emerged around algorithms displacing high-quality content for children. One respondent raised concerns about engagement-optimised algorithms that surface salacious or provocative content over high-quality, trusted UK content, arguing this is detrimental to children’s online experiences.

Support for restrictions

• Many civil society and child safety respondents were broadly supportive of stronger action on persuasive or addictive features, with some backing age thresholds or default restrictions for younger users. Among those who supported age thresholds or default restrictions on persuasive features, there was a range of proposed ages and approaches. Some respondents proposed graduated restrictions across a range of features rather than a single threshold, with older children able to access riskier functionalities with certain safeguards in place. In contrast, some respondents supported age restrictions on all the features listed in the consultation and a minimum age restriction of 16 for high-risk features and platforms. In addition to the persuasive features listed in the consultation, many respondents also raised engagement streaks. A further response called for greater transparency over algorithmic design features and how they influence children. One stakeholder recommended that restrictions should target the harmful behaviours and outcomes associated with these features rather than simply listing prohibited design features, to prevent platforms designing around the rules.

Opposition to restrictions

• However, many platforms and industry respondents were not supportive of age restrictions on features and functionalities or universal feature bans. Respondents generally preferred risk-based, evidence-led approaches, stronger parental controls, age-appropriate defaults and safer by design experiences. A recurring industry view was that blanket restrictions could have unintended consequences, including displacement to less regulated services, overreach into services that are not social media in nature, reduced access to beneficial online experiences, and disproportionate compliance burdens. A gaming platform noted that the ‘addictive’ features and functionalities listed in the consultation relate primarily to social media services, not gaming, which a creative industries respondent also emphasised: “design-feature restrictions are more relevant to open social media than to creative-sector services”.

Screen time and overnight access

• Views also diverged on daily screen time limits and overnight access limits. Several civil society child safety respondents were broadly supportive of such measures as part of a wider package to support healthier habits, sleep and disengagement. However, other respondents were more sceptical of time limits as a standalone solution, arguing that they would not address harms where harmful content is encountered quickly or where wider service design remains unsafe. Several MPs noted that curfews or time limits should be set during school hours.
• Industry respondents were generally less supportive of mandatory or blanket time limits and curfews, though some pointed to existing tools already available to families. A number of respondents referred to screen time tools, curfews, parental controls, or family settings, but generally argued these should remain flexible tools for parents and carers rather than mandated restrictions. Industry bodies and platforms also warned that mandatory limits could undermine parental discretion, create implementation difficulties, encourage circumvention, and affect services used for beneficial purposes such as education, creativity, gaming, music or support.

Views on age-based and time-based restrictions

• Overall, respondents were supportive of stronger action where design features materially increase risks to children, but views diverged on how far government should go in imposing age-based or time-based restrictions. Some groups called for stronger restrictions on persuasive or engagement-based design features, often through graduated age thresholds and safer defaults, while others preferred a more contextual, risk-based model focused on the most harmful functionalities and the overall safety architecture of a service. Across both groups, respondents frequently noted the importance of proportionate regulation, effective age assurance, parental controls, and a broader ‘safety by design’ approach rather than reliance on a single intervention.

What type of services should restrictions apply to

The consultation sought views on which services should be subject to restrictions. This included asking which kinds of services should be included in any minimum age of access, for example, an under-16 ban for social media. The consultation also asked which kinds of services should be included in age-restrictions of particular features and functionalities.

In both cases the consultation asked respondents to consider whether a broad or narrower scope would ensure children are better protected. This included asking whether gaming or messaging services should be included in either a service ban or age-restricted functionalities measure, and which specific services should be excluded from either type of approach.

Consultation response – question 21

1. What factors are important when determining which apps, sites or services to apply minimum age of access restrictions to? For example, user-to-user interaction, the ability to post material, persuasive design features, risky functionalities, the ability to generate non-text mediums such as video or images, the target age group, the size of the service.

Summary of findings:

Around half of respondents referenced ‘risky’ and ‘persuasive design features’ as important factors to consider when determining which apps, sites or services to apply minimum age of access restrictions to. These respondents referenced the ability for users to post material and the ability for users to interact with each other. The size of platforms was also referenced by few respondents, who mostly noted there should be stricter restrictions for larger platforms.

Very few responses considered that exemptions should be an important factor when determining which services are subject to a minimum age of access. Of these responses, educational services were the most frequently cited example of services should be exempt from restrictions. Other examples referenced by respondents included support services.

Few respondents identified data gathering and advertising as key considerations in determining minimum age of access restrictions, citing data collection and targeted advertising as factors that should be considered.

While the majority of responses focused on factors to be considered when applying restrictions, a small number of respondents to this question expressed the view that age restrictions should apply to all services without exception. Conversely, a small number of respondents to this question considered that no age restrictions should be imposed on platforms.

Additional views not captured within the main themes included concerns about the impact of services on children’s mental health, as well as the view that restrictions should reflect the nature of the service — with specific reference to gambling services, adult content sites and platforms that enable direct communication between users.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
Strict age restrictions for risky and harmful online features	Platforms that offer risky functionalities (such as user interaction, live streaming, location sharing, and anonymous communication) or expose children to harmful, illegal, explicit, or age-inappropriate content, including AI-generated or poorly moderated material should be subject to strict age restrictions to protect children’s safety and wellbeing.	Around half
Opposition to age restrictions	Preference for parental responsibility, education, and device-level controls over government-imposed age restrictions, with concerns about unintended negative consequences or harm to vulnerable groups.	A small number
Apply age restrictions to all services	Age restriction policies should be consistent with other media regulations, such as the film industry, have clear and transparent criteria, and be adaptable through regular review to remain effective and responsive.	A small number
Age restrictions for data gathering and advertising	Services that collect children’s personal data or use targeted advertising should be age-restricted to protect children’s privacy and prevent misuse or harm.	Few
Stricter age restrictions for large platforms	Larger or more popular platforms with inadequate moderation or safety systems should have stricter age restrictions due to increased risks and greater challenges in controlling harmful content.	Few
Exemptions for low-risk support services	Educational, health, family, and support services that are safe, well-moderated, and provide clear positive value are considered lower risk and may justify exemptions or reduced age restrictions.	Very few
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question.	Few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes. Sub themes include whether a service is for adults/over 18’s	Few

Consultation response – question 22

1. Are there any types of apps, sites or services that you would want to be captured by minimum age of access restrictions?

Summary of findings:

Around half of respondents to this question identified social media, gaming and AI chatbots as services that should be subject to minimum age of access restrictions. A small number expressed the view that minimum age of access restrictions should apply to all services, with a number of these respondents placing particular emphasis on services that enable direct communication between users.

In addition to identifying the types of services that should be captured by age restrictions, a few respondents considered that no age restrictions should be imposed on services. Many within this group expressed the view that responsibility should rest with parents to make use of appropriate parental controls and existing safety tools provided by services.

A recurring theme among responses categorised under “Other” related to services where advertising is prominent and where data sharing practices were considered a concern.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response share
Age restrictions for social, gaming, and AI platforms	Support for imposing minimum age restrictions on social media, messaging, chat, anonymous communication platforms, online gaming platforms, and AI-powered platforms due to risks of harmful content, addictive features, unsafe interactions, privacy concerns, and emotional dependency for children.	Around half
Age restrictions for all services	Support for applying minimum age restrictions to all apps, sites, and online services to ensure comprehensive child protection, with advocacy for risk-based exemptions for educational or essential platforms and for age restrictions to be determined by child protection experts based on evidence or content.	A small number
Opposition to age restrictions	Preference for parental responsibility and concerns about privacy, effectiveness, fairness, and government overreach drive opposition to further government-imposed age restrictions, with support for education and existing measures instead.	Few
Strict age restrictions for adult, gambling, and dating services	Sites and apps offering adult content, pornography, gambling, and dating services should be strictly age-restricted to protect minors from harm and exploitation.	Few
Strict age restrictions for sites promoting harmful or illegal content	Sites promoting self-harm, eating disorders, violence, extremism, or other harmful or illegal content should be strictly age-restricted to protect minors’ mental health and safety.	Very few
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question.	A small number
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes, including support for capturing services with targeted advertising.	Very few

Consultation response – question 23

1. What factors are important when determining which apps, sites or services to apply age-restrictions on specific features and functionalities? For example, user-to-user interaction, the ability to post material, persuasive design features, risky functionalities, the ability to generate non-text mediums such as video or images, the target age group, the size of the service.

Summary of findings:

The most frequently cited factor, referenced by some respondents, related to whether a service enables user-to-user interaction and direct communication, with several respondents specifically highlighting the ability to communicate with strangers as a key concern. A small number of respondents identified persuasive design features as an important consideration when determining which applications, sites or services should be subject to age restrictions on specific features and functionalities.

Very few respondents considered that the needs of vulnerable users and the impact on children’s mental health should be important factors in any such determination. Very few respondents emphasised that any age restriction framework should be simple and clearly communicated.

A small number of respondents expressed the view that there are no relevant factors to consider, on the basis that no age restrictions should be imposed on services.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
User-to-user connections	Services that allow user-to-user connections, ability to be contacted by others including strangers.	Some
Persuasive design and addictive features	Persuasive design features and addictive features such as infinite scrolling, push notifications and autoplay.	A small number
No factors	No factors to consider as there should not be age restrictions. Significant scepticism about the effectiveness of government-imposed age restrictions, with concerns about circumvention, negative impacts, privacy, digital rights, and a preference for parental responsibility and education over regulation.	A small number
Consideration of vulnerable users	Protections and risk assessments should specifically address the needs of neurodivergent, disabled, and other vulnerable users, in addition to children in general.	Very few
Exemptions for educational and child-friendly apps	Educational, essential, and child-friendly apps and features should be exempt from age restrictions to prevent a digital divide and support children’s learning and positive development.	Very few
Need for transparent and simple criteria	Clear, transparent, and easily understandable criteria and guidelines are necessary to ensure consistent, fair, and effective enforcement of restrictions.	Very few
Need for safe online alternatives for children	Safe and functional alternatives must be provided for children if access to certain online features is restricted, ensuring their needs are still met in a secure environment.	Very few
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question.	A small number
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes. Subthemes include services needing to meet set criteria for children’s access	Some

Consultation response – question 24

1. Are there any types of apps, sites or services that you want to be captured by age-restrictions to features/ functionalities?

Summary of findings:

Some respondents to this question expressed support for placing restrictions on gaming and social media platforms, as well as streaming and video sharing platforms when used by children, citing risks associated with harmful content, inappropriate interactions, and addictive features.

A very few respondents specified that platforms featuring violent and extreme content should be subject to age restrictions on features and functionalities. A few respondents considered that adult content, including pornography, gambling and dating services, should have features and functionalities specifically restricted, while a few respondents expressed support for targeting high-risk features such as messaging, live streaming, algorithmic feeds, location sharing, disappearing messages, microtransactions and addictive design, regardless of the platform on which they appear. A very few respondents called for age restrictions on targeted advertising and monetisation and on microtransactions and e-commerce features.

A small number of respondents advocated for widespread age restrictions on content considered harmful to children, with exemptions for services that provide educational or other demonstrable value. Few respondents opposed the introduction of legal age restrictions on platforms, favouring instead greater parental and platform responsibility.

Of the responses falling outside these themes, a very few responses largely aligned with calls for fewer restrictions on online platforms. These respondents tended to highlight privacy concerns and the risk of data breaches associated with age verification methods, as well as the need to consider alternative approaches that would require platforms themselves to address harmful content and features available to children. Several responses within this category made specific reference to AI interactions, such as chatbots, and generative AI features, as a risk to children.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
Age restrictions for social media, gaming, and streaming platforms	Support for age restrictions on major social media, gaming, streaming, and video sharing platforms due to risks from harmful content, unhealthy interactions, addictive features, and exposure to strangers.	Some
Age restrictions for all services aside from specific beneficial services	Broad or universal age restrictions on all apps, sites, and services with potentially harmful features, while allowing exceptions for educational or beneficial platforms to ensure comprehensive protection for children online.	A small number
Age restrictions for adult websites and services	Support for imposing strict age restrictions on sites and services featuring pornography, gambling or dating to protect minors from harmful exposure and exploitation.	Few
Age restrictions for messaging and user interaction features	Support for age restrictions on messaging, chat, and communication apps or features enabling user-to-user contact, especially those allowing anonymous or group interactions, to protect minors from grooming, harassment, and unsafe contact.	Few
Age restrictions for services which have high-risk functionalities	Support age restrictions targeting specific high-risk features such as messaging, live streaming, algorithmic feeds, location sharing, disappearing messages, microtransactions, and addictive design elements, regardless of platform type.	Few
No age restrictions and preference for parental responsibility	Oppose further or government-mandated age restrictions, preferring parental responsibility, expressing privacy and surveillance concerns, and doubting the effectiveness of such measures.	Few
Age restrictions for services which have violent and extreme content	Support for imposing strict age restrictions on sites and services featuring violent and extreme content to protect children.	Very few
Age restrictions for e-commerce platforms and platforms with the ability to make payments	Some call for age restrictions on e-commerce, payment, marketplace, and monetisation platforms to protect children from financial exploitation, unsafe products, targeted advertising, and data profiling.	Very few
Age restrictions for targeted advertising	Age restrictions for targeted advertising or monetisation.	Very few
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question	Some
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes. Subthemes include privacy and data leaks for age verification, generative AI, extreme political opinions/misinformation and children’s exposure to these. Respondents also raised the motivation and the responsibility of tech companies to comply.	Very few

Consultation response – question 25

1. Some services are already exempt from the Online Safety Act. Examples include internal business services, services with limited functionalities and services provided by persons providing education or childcare. Are there additional types of service which you think would be appropriate to exempt from age restrictions? These might include services whose primary purpose is delivery of educational content, services that offer specific child or teen accounts or versions, or services which offer parental controls.

Summary of findings:

Some respondents to this question supported exempting educational and cultural services from age restrictions, including school-managed services, news and reference sites, and cultural or learning resources such as libraries and museums, particularly where these are moderated and safeguarded. A small number who responded to this question opposed age restrictions or further application of the Online Safety Act more broadly, citing concerns about government overreach, privacy, and freedom of expression.

A small number of respondents said there should be no additional exemptions, arguing that all services should be subject to age restrictions to ensure a consistent approach to child safety and avoid loopholes. A small number supported exemptions for services with robust parental controls, or strong safety features, while few highlighted the importance of exempting health, mental health, wellbeing, crisis support, safeguarding, and charity services so young people can access support and information.

A few responses emphasised parental responsibility over government regulation, arguing that parents should be primarily responsible for managing children’s access online. A very few respondents raised uncertainty, or no strong opinions, concerns about privacy and age verification, and support for exempting essential or low-risk services such as banking, government, productivity, mapping, weather, or user-to-user communication tools. Very few respondents also suggested exemptions should be considered on a case-by-case, risk-based basis, while others raised concerns that exemptions could create loopholes.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response share
Exempt educational and cultural services	Educational, school-managed, news, reference, and cultural sites such as libraries and museums should be exempt from age restrictions to guarantee access to learning and reliable information for all ages, provided they are well-moderated and safeguarded.	Some
Oppose age restrictions and Online Safety Act	Age restrictions and the Online Safety Act should be removed or not expanded due to concerns about government overreach, privacy, freedom of expression, and ineffectiveness.	A small number
No additional exemptions; universal age restrictions	All services should be subject to age restrictions to ensure consistent child safety and prevent loopholes or exploitation, with no further exemptions granted.	A small number
Exempt services with robust parental controls	Services offering strong parental controls, child/teen-specific accounts, or proven safety features should be exempt from age restrictions if safeguards are effective, verifiable, and meet appropriate standards.	A small number
Exempt health and support services	Health, mental health, wellbeing, crisis support, safeguarding, and reputable charity services should be exempt from age restrictions to ensure children and young people have access to vital help and information.	Few
Parental responsibility over government regulation	Parents should be primarily responsible for managing children’s online access, with parental empowerment, education, and tools preferred over state-imposed age restrictions or regulatory exemptions.	Few
Uncertainty or no strong opinion on exemptions	There is uncertainty or lack of clear opinion on which services should be exempt from age restrictions, with deference to expert judgement.	Very few
Concerns about privacy and age verification	Age verification and restrictions threaten privacy, increase risk of data breaches, and could lead to government surveillance or stealth introduction of digital ID.	Very few
Exempt essential, utility, or user-to-user communication services.	Essential, utility, banking, government, transport, weather, mapping, user-to-user communication or productivity tools should be exempt from age restrictions due to their necessity, low risk, and importance for daily life and child safety.	Very few
Case-by-case, risk-based exemption framework	Exemptions should be determined individually, or by clear, objective criteria, with strict risk assessment, independent oversight, and ongoing monitoring to ensure safety and prevent abuse or loopholes.	Very few
Concerns about exemptions creating loopholes	Exemptions could be abused, create loopholes, or undermine child protection, necessitating strict definitions, oversight, and caution in granting exemptions.	Very few
Exempt small-scale and community platforms	Small, non-profit, volunteer-run, open source, decentralized, or community-based services should be exempt from age restrictions due to their limited resources, low risk, and social value, and to avoid undue compliance burdens.	Very few
Exempt services for marginalised and disabled groups	Services and forums supporting disabled, neurodivergent, or marginalised groups should be exempt from age restrictions to maintain accessibility and access to critical resources.	Very few
Educational services should not be exempt	Educational services still drive perceived harms and should not be exempted from restrictions.	Very few
Concerns about children’s screen time	There should be no or limited exemptions as children’s time is too high and should be mitigated where possible.	Very few
Exempt privacy and security tools	Privacy and security tools such as VPNs should be exempt from age restrictions to protect privacy, security, and maintain a free and open internet.	Very few
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question	Very few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes. Subthemes include regulating AI-features within exempt apps (such as WhatsApp), conflicting views on sites referencing diet or suicide - with some advocates for exempting support and exchange forums, while others calling for no exemptions; sport exemptions.	Very few

Email responses on what type of services restrictions should apply to

Summary of responses:

Scope of minimum age of access to services

• Responses argued for both broader and narrower scopes for service bans. Civil society organisations raised concerns about the narrow nature of the Australian approach. Many argued that the scope and requirements for a minimum age ban should apply to social media, messaging, and high-risk gaming platforms to avoid the downsides of a narrower scope.
• Some civil society organisations argued that all services should be tested for the presence of a combination of risky and persuasive features or functionalities, and that where these are present, the service should implement a minimum age of access. One respondent argued that the presence of any risky features or functionalities, regardless of platform, should result in implementing a minimum age for the whole service. However, industry representatives stated that age restricting access to services on this basis would disregard context of use of the functions, not reflect the purpose of the service, and would impact too broad a range of services.
• Some civil society organisations also suggested that the business model should be a key factor in determining scope for minimum age.  One respondent argued that a key factor was whether a service’s business model requires it to maximise engagement.
• Many platforms and industry groups stressed that the primary purpose of a service should be included when considering whether to apply a minimum-age service ban. It was also argued by one respondent that the primary purpose consideration should include whether a service’s primary purpose, design and safeguards reduce risks to children. Another industry respondent stressed the need to build the scope for a minimum age service ban within the OSA framework, based on a service having particular features or functionalities. They stressed the dangers of not doing so would lead to services avoiding the ban.

Scope of services subject to age-restricted functionalities

• There was support across industry and civil society for a broad range of user-to-user services being in scope of risk-based assessment of features and functionalities on different platforms. Views differed as to whether this should result in all services age-restricting risky features and functionalities or only certain services. For example, gaming services argued that communication functions on their platforms should not be age-restricted in the same way as social media services without considering the context in which they are used and safety measures present. Some argued that services with weak moderation or reporting systems should have a higher minimum age restriction.
• Civil society organisations differed on whether all services within scope of feature or functionalities restrictions should automatically age-restrict any risky functionalities, or whether the age restrictions should vary between services, based on the level of risk. One respondent argued that all services in scope should automatically age-restrict risky functionalities if present, whilst others argued for differing age-restrictions based on risks posed by functions on particular platforms (e.g. no-age-restriction on notification functionality where it was only for communication between close friends and family).
• Arguments were made by industry against the broad application of age-restriction of functionality, particularly without considering the specific context in which these functionalities or features are used, or where such features and functionalities may be the main purpose of the service. One platform, for example, argued that age-restrictions of features or functionalities should consider how the service uses these features, to avoid capturing low-risk uses (e.g. private messaging between known contacts) which are of benefit to young people, particularly more vulnerable groups that rely on digital communications to maintain relationships.
• Broadly, platforms felt that the scope of minimum age restrictions must align or work within overall scope of the OSA, whereas civil society groups felt that there was a need for age-restriction of functionalities to go beyond OSA measures. Some civil society respondents argued for an expansion of the risky functionalities listed in the consultation. A further civil society respondent cited features such as in-app purchases on services which could lead to financial harms.

Exemptions

• There were suggested exemptions raised regarding carve outs for educational services, business to business, and e-commerce/marketplaces. An industry response proposed that services with limited functionalities (such as some internal business and professional services) should be excluded on that basis. Civil society organisations mostly supported exemptions for educational services although some argued that exemptions should be based on clear evidence of safety by design for the children using a service (e.g. no algorithmic content or advertising). Journalistic content, news, and access to information should be exempt or face very limited restrictions. Video sharing platforms were called out for both restriction and exemption, with many respondents favouring exemption.
• Several responses advocated for medical exemptions, such as health apps for condition monitoring, peer-support communities (especially for children with no other way to socialise), or for mental health support. Responses also referenced school bans which would need to account for e.g. children with long-term health conditions using smartphones to monitor diabetes; and for those used as accessibility tools.
• Industry, including platforms and gaming companies, were of the view that gaming services should be exempted from any social media ban. Responses also drew a distinction between interactive entertainment and passive or social media content, emphasising the positive developmental benefits of gaming (such as problem solving) as fundamentally different from passive ‘scrolling’ apps. Support for gaming chat rooms to be included however in a ban was greater. A gaming industry response argued that the features identified in the consultation as risky – player-to-player communication, recommendation feeds, affirmation mechanics (achievements or trophies), and time spent – function differently in video games than in social media and carry lower risk. It also noted that the recently updated PEGI criteria now incorporates feature-based ratings (e.g. loot boxes PEGI 16, unrestricted player communications PEGI 18, punitive ‘play by appointment’ mechanics PEGI 12) as a proportionate, nuanced alternative to blanket restrictions. The response recommended that regulation should assess outcomes and risk rather than applying broad prohibitions by feature name.
• Industry generally called for services such as cloud storage and messaging services to be exempt from service level restrictions. One respondent also argued for exempting cloud storage. Platforms also advocated for messaging services to be included in any carve outs. Civil society groups, on the other hand, were of the view that gaming and messaging services are high-risk.
• A civil society respondent suggested that some features and functions could be exempted from age restrictions if they meet wellbeing criteria.

Chatbots and AI

In this section, we consulted on AI chatbots, including the benefits to children of using AI, as well as the features of chatbots that represent a risk to child users. We asked respondents for their views on whether AI chatbots should have age restrictions, either for access to chatbots generally, or for features that represent a risk to children.

Consultation response – question 26

1. What are the benefits to children of using AI chatbots? For example, this might include as a search function, for educational purposes, for creativity.

Summary of findings:

Some respondents indicated that they perceived no benefits from children’s use of AI chatbots, citing concerns that the associated risks outweigh any potential advantages. A few respondents expressed the view that existing tools or human interaction are preferable alternatives. A few respondents raised concerns about exposure to misinformation or harmful content, a few raised concerns about overreliance and reduced critical thinking, and a very few raised concerns about broader negative impacts on cognitive development. A very few responses raised risks to academic integrity, a very few raised risks to privacy, data protection, and ethical concerns, and a very few raised risks to wider environmental and societal impacts of AI-driven chatbots.

Conversely, some respondents argued that AI chatbots can support personalised learning and accessibility, with AI chatbots identified as supporting homework, explaining complex topics, and assisting children with additional needs. A small number of respondents also highlighted benefits for creativity and curiosity, a few highlighted benefits to digital literacy and future skills, a very few highlighted benefits of emotional support and a very few of entertainment and engagement.

A few respondents emphasised that any benefits are conditional on supervision and safeguards, while a very few expressed uncertainty and a need for further research. A very few provided no reasoning, and additional concerns were captured in a very few ‘other’ responses, including more acute safeguarding risks and views on regulation and parental responsibility.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
AI chatbots support personalised learning and accessibility	AI chatbots can assist children with learning, homework, and understanding complex topics by providing quick, accessible, and personalised explanations and support, including for those with additional or special needs, disabilities, neurodiversity, language barriers, or social anxieties.	Some
No or very minimal perceived benefits from AI chatbots	There are minimal or no benefits to children using AI chatbots, as existing resources are seen as sufficient or the risks outweigh any potential advantages.	Some
AI chatbots foster creativity and curiosity	AI chatbots can encourage creativity, imagination, curiosity, and self-expression in children by helping them generate ideas, develop stories, and explore new interests in a supportive environment.	A small number
AI chatbot benefits are conditional on supervision and safeguards	The advantages of AI chatbots for children depend on appropriate adult supervision, robust safety measures, age-appropriate design, and clear guidelines to ensure safe and effective use.	Few
AI chatbots expose children to misinformation and harmful content	AI chatbots may provide inaccurate, misleading, biased, or age-inappropriate information, exposing children to risks if not properly regulated and supervised.	Few
AI chatbots enhance digital literacy and future skills	Using AI chatbots helps children develop digital literacy, critical thinking, technological awareness, and AI literacy, preparing them for future education, careers, and responsible technology use.	Few
AI chatbots increase risk of overreliance and reduced critical thinking	AI chatbots may hinder children’s critical thinking, problem-solving, independence, and creativity by encouraging overreliance and reducing original thought.	Few
Children should use search engines or talk to humans instead of chatbots	Human interaction and typical educational methods are considered superior to AI chatbots for children’s learning, creativity, and social development.	Few
AI chatbots provide emotional and social support	AI chatbots can offer a safe, non-judgemental space for children to express emotions, seek advice, receive companionship, and support mental wellbeing, especially for those who are anxious, isolated, or reluctant to talk to others.	Very few
AI chatbots are detrimental to children’s cognitive development	AI chatbots impede children’s cognitive development and reduces overall intelligence, social, and life skills.	Very few
Uncertainty about AI chatbot benefits and need for further research	The benefits of AI chatbots for children remain uncertain, with calls for more research and regulation before any advantages can be established.	Very few
AI chatbots contribute to environmental and societal harms	AI chatbots may have negative environmental impacts, increase resource consumption, reinforce corporate control, and cause broader societal harms when used by children.	Very few
AI chatbots offer entertainment and engagement	AI chatbots can provide fun, entertainment, and engaging interactive experiences for children, including opportunities for family bonding and motivation.	Very few
AI chatbots raise privacy, data security, and ethical concerns	AI chatbots raise issues around children’s data privacy, security, surveillance, and ethical use, including potential misuse, bias, and environmental impacts.	Very few
AI chatbots undermine academic integrity through misuse and cheating	AI chatbots may enable children to cheat on homework or assignments, misuse the technology, or bypass restrictions, undermining academic integrity and genuine learning.	Very few
No reason given	These responses did not provide substantive answers to the question.	Very few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes. Subthemes include AI stimulating maladaptive behaviours, specifically self-harm and suicide; regulate ‘Big Tech’ and not the public; government overreach and parents should make decisions.	Very few

Consultation response – question 27

1. Which AI chatbot features are most risky for children? (Please select all that apply)
   a. The realism of interactions, including realism of content generated
   b. The personalisation of interactions
   c. How they mimic relationships (friendship)
   d. How they mimic relationships (romantic)
   e. How they mimic empathy
   f. Flattering language
   g. Features to encourage more questions/ requests (e.g. asking questions back)
   h. The ability to recall interactions across sessions
   i. The type of content generated – a) video, b) text, c) audio, d) image
   j. Allowing children to have accounts
   k. Hallucination or false, misleading responses
   l. Ability to engage in and generate mature content (e.g. sexual / romantic roleplay)
   m. Other (please specify)
   n. None of the above/AI chatbot features are not risky for children
   o. Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer

Which AI chatbot features are most risky for children? (Please select all that apply)	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
The realism of interactions, including realism of content generated	74%	15,561	81%	7,456
The personalisation of interactions	69%	14,464	74%	6,888
How they mimic relationships (friendship)	80%	16,864	86%	7,927
How they mimic relationships (romantic)	82%	17,141	86%	7,990
How they mimic empathy	70%	14,707	74%	6,859
Flattering language	72%	15,170	77%	7,143
Features to encourage more questions/ requests (e.g. asking questions back)	59%	12,466	65%	6,046
The ability to recall interactions across sessions	54%	11,331	59%	5,488
The type of content generated – a) video, b) text, c) audio, d) image	63%	13,173	68%	6,308
Allowing children to have accounts	62%	12,987	71%	6,599
Hallucination or false, misleading responses	82%	17,270	85%	7,877
Ability to engage in and generate mature content (e.g. sexual / romantic roleplay)	80%	16,860	87%	8,071
Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer	3%	701	2%	195
None of the above/AI chatbot features are not risky for children	4%	800	3%	264
Other (please specify):	9%	1,985	6%	555
	answered	21,013		9,253
	skipped	3,521		808

Summary of ‘other’ responses
A few respondents provided additional context to their responses with free text. The themes below each represent a very few responses.

Responses suggest all the features listed in the consultation make AI risky for children. Respondents also felt AI chatbot risks are not unique to children and there are also risks to adults.

A very few responses highlight the risk of AI chatbots impairing critical thinking and academic integrity as well as the risk of inaccurate and misleading information.

A preference for parental supervision and responsibility over government involvement is raised in responses. There are also responses highlighting that a lack of education, digital literacy, and adult oversight increases vulnerability.

A very few responses also take the position that there are no risks to AI chatbots, either due to built-in safeguards or because no specific risks were identified.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
All the features listed in the consultation make AI risky for children	All AI chatbot features are considered inherently risky for children, leading to advocacy for broad restrictions or bans.	Very few
AI poses risks to adults too and harms are not unique to children	The risks posed by AI chatbots apply equally to adults and children, supporting universal safeguards and education.	Very few
Increased risk of impaired critical thinking and academic integrity	Overreliance on AI chatbots can undermine children’s critical thinking, creativity, independent learning, and facilitate cheating or plagiarism.	Very few
Increased risk of misinformation and inaccuracy	AI chatbots can provide false, misleading, or speculative information that children may not be able to critically assess.	Very few
Parental responsibility and supervision are preferred to government involvement	Effective parental supervision, education, and robust parental controls are  crucial to mitigating AI chatbot risks for children, rather than the government intervening in children or parents’ use of AI.	Very few
Emotional manipulation, unhealthy dependency, and sycophancy	AI chatbots that simulate relationships or foster emotional bonds can manipulate children, create unhealthy attachments, and negatively impact their social and emotional development.	Very few
Greater exposure to harmful, inappropriate, or suicide content	AI chatbots may expose children to explicit, violent, sexual, manipulative, or otherwise age-inappropriate content due to insufficient safeguards and content filtering.	Very few
Lack of education, digital literacy, and adult oversight increases vulnerability	Children’s susceptibility to AI chatbot risks is heightened by insufficient education, digital literacy, and lack of adult supervision.	Very few
Heightened privacy, data collection, and security risks	AI chatbots may collect, misuse, or inadequately protect children’s personal data, raising concerns about privacy breaches, exploitation, manipulation, and identity theft.	Very few
Addiction, excessive use, and social isolation	Engaging features may foster addictive usage patterns in children, leading to excessive use, social isolation, and unhealthy screen time habits.	Very few
Environmental and societal impact affects children’s wellbeing	The operation of AI chatbots has environmental impacts and broader societal risks, which may affect children’s long-term wellbeing.	Very few
Lack of regulation, transparency, and accountability increases risk	Insufficient regulation, transparency, and auditability in AI chatbots increase risks for children and make it difficult to address errors or abuses.	Very few
Increased risk of bias, discrimination, and value misalignment	AI chatbots can perpetuate biases, stereotypes, or misaligned values from their training data or creators, influencing children’s attitudes and social norms.	Very few
Safeguard circumvention and inadequate boundaries	Children may bypass chatbot safeguards or encounter chatbots that fail to set appropriate boundaries, increasing exposure to risks.	Very few
No risks or risks mitigated by safeguards	AI chatbots are not considered particularly risky for children, either due to built-in safeguards or because no specific risks were identified.	Very few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes	Very few
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question	Very few

Consultation response – question 28

1. Which functionalities of AI chatbots should minimum age restrictions apply to?

Summary of responses:

Around half of respondents supported applying minimum age requirements across all AI chatbot functionalities, reflecting a precautionary stance rooted in concerns about children’s safety, exposure to harmful content, and lack of maturity. A very few went further, advocating for bans on AI chatbots altogether due to perceived wider societal and environmental harms.

Within more targeted responses, specific high-risk functionalities were identified. A few identified sexual or romantic content, particularly where chatbots simulate relationships or roleplay interactions, and a few identified anthropomorphic features, or where AI mimics human emotions or behaviours. A few respondents highlighted generative capabilities, such as an AI chatbot’s ability to produce images, audio, video, or specifically deepfakes. A very few cited concerns around personalisation, persistent memory, and data collection, which indicated respondents’ unease about privacy, profiling, and the potential for tailored or persuasive interactions. A very few also emphasised the importance of chatbots clearly identifying themselves as non-human, while a very few focused on company accountability for enforcing safeguards.

Alongside these views, some respondents supported more selective or conditional access. For example, a few argued that educational, factual, or welfare-related uses should remain accessible for children, particularly in supervised or school settings, indicating support for differentiated access rather than blanket restrictions. Conversely, a few opposed additional measures outright or a few preferred alternative approaches such as parental controls and digital literacy, while a very few expressed doubts about effectiveness and enforceability of age restrictions.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
All AI chatbots should be age restricted	Minimum age requirements should apply to all AI chatbots regardless of functionalities, with high thresholds or complete bans for children to protect against risks such as safety concerns, lack of maturity, and exposure to harmful content.	Around half
Support for restricting sexual or romantic content	To impose age restrictions where AI services produce sexualised or romantic content, including roleplaying relationships.	Few
Support for restricting anthropomorphism	To impose age restrictions where AI services mimic human interactions or present themselves as having emotions, thoughts, or behave in a human-like manner.	Few
Allow educational and factual AI use for children	Access to AI chatbots should be permitted for educational, factual, or welfare-related purposes, particularly in supervised or school environments, while restricting other functionalities for children.	Few
Support for age restrictions on generative AI media	Age restrictions should be applied to AI chatbots that generate images, audio, video, or deepfakes, particularly when these outputs could be explicit, violent, misleading, or facilitate abuse.	Few
General opposition to new age restrictions	New age restrictions are unnecessary, or unjustified, as existing laws, provider-level controls, or platform responsibility are considered sufficient, or age restrictions are seen as impractical.	Few
All AI chatbots should be banned due to wider risks	The use of AI chatbots is believed to contribute to environmental harm and broader societal issues, with some advocating for strong measures such as shutting down companies to mitigate these risks.	Very few
Parental controls and education preferred over age restrictions	Parental controls, supervision, and digital literacy education are considered more effective or appropriate than government-imposed age restrictions for managing children’s access to AI chatbots.	Very few
Support for restricting personalisation	To impose age restrictions on functionalities that personalise responses to children, for example by saying their name, speak in a personal tone, or change output to mirror behaviour.	Very few
Doubts about age restriction effectiveness	There is scepticism regarding whether age restrictions and age verification measures can be effectively enforced and whether they adequately protect privacy, with suggestions that alternative approaches like education or more nuanced controls may be preferable.	Very few
Uncertainty about appropriate AI chatbot restrictions	There is uncertainty or lack of knowledge regarding which AI chatbot functionalities should have age restrictions, indicating the complexity of determining suitable safeguards and the need for clearer guidance.	Very few
Support for restricting persistent memory	To impose age restrictions where AI services maintain information of children between chatbots responses or conversations.	Very few
Support for restricting any aspect of AI which collects children’s data	To impose age restrictions where AI services collect the data of children, for example name, date of birth, or children’s chat inputs.	Very few
Support for tiered age restrictions	Advocated for implementing consistent, tiered, or feature-specific age restrictions for AI chatbots, suggesting categorisation or graduated frameworks to tailor protections based on risk and user maturity.	Very few
Consistent regulation with media age ratings	AI chatbot functionalities should be regulated in accordance with existing content laws and media age ratings to ensure consistency and age-appropriate access.	Very few
Chatbots should have mandatory self-identification	Chatbots must always clearly disclose that they are not human, with explicit warnings to prevent user confusion and manipulation, particularly protecting minors.	Very few
Company accountability for AI chatbot safety	Companies operating AI chatbots should be held responsible for enforcing age restrictions, safeguarding children, and addressing any harm caused by their services.	Very few
No reason given	These responses did not provide substantive answers to the question.	Few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes. Subthemes include harms from the design AI; that child development is a spectrum; AI features reinforce unhelpful thinking or reduce critical thinking; AI parasocial relationships reduce appetite for complex, in-person interactions.	Very few

Consultation response – question 29

1. Should AI chatbots have minimum age restrictions?

Should AI chatbots have minimum age restrictions?	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
Yes – minimum age requirements for AI chatbots	35%	7,393	42%	3,908
Yes – restrict access to certain features and functionalities	11%	2,357	13%	1,154
Yes – both minimum age requirements and restricting access to certain features and functionalities	30%	6,332	35%	3,234
No	19%	3,947	8%	775
Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer	4%	903	2%	190
	answered	20,932		9,261
	skipped	3,602		800

Consultation response – question 30

1. What do you think the impact would be of introducing age restrictions on AI chatbots or certain features and functions? For example, impacts on the safety and wellbeing of children, or the impact for parents and carers, as well as other users. You could also comment on the impact on all users’ privacy and data or on business costs, revenue, and innovation.

Summary of findings:

Respondents identified a broad mix of benefits, risks, and trade-offs associated with introducing age restrictions on AI chatbots. The most prominent theme, which was raised by some respondents, was perceived improved child safety and wellbeing, where limited access to AI-driven chatbots during childhood was seen to support healthier development and to empower parents and educators. A small number of respondents also highlighted that age restrictions on AI chatbots could promote children’s critical thinking, reduce their overreliance on AI, and a very few highlighted that they could reduce academic dishonesty. A very few noted that restrictions could incentivise safer, child-friendly design and greater industry responsibility.

A small number of respondents also cited concerns about privacy and data risks related to age verification methods, as well as a few raising concerns about limited effectiveness due to circumvention and a few noted that impacts may be minimal or unclear.

A few participants also raised economic and innovation burdens, parental responsibility and education as preferable safeguards, and potential negative effects on education and digital inclusion, alongside a very few who raised broader freedom and government overreach concerns.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
Improved or enhanced child safety and wellbeing	Age restrictions were seen as improving children’s safety and wellbeing by reducing exposure to harmful content, supporting healthy development, and empowering parents and educators.	Some
Promotion of critical thinking and real-world skills	Restricting AI chatbot access is believed to foster children’s independent thinking, creativity, critical thinking, and real-world social and emotional skills by reducing overreliance on AI.	A small number
Privacy, data security, and surveillance risks - including for adults	Enforcing age restrictions would require intrusive age verification, increasing risks of privacy breaches, data misuse, surveillance, and loss of personal freedom.	A small number
Ineffectiveness and circumvention risks	Age restrictions are likely to be easily bypassed by children, making the measures ineffective and possibly pushing them toward less safe or unregulated alternatives.	Few
Minimal or unclear impact of age restrictions	Some believe age restrictions would have little, unclear, or no meaningful effect due to the evolving nature of AI and children’s adaptability.	Few
Increased business and innovation burden	Age restrictions on AI chatbots would raise compliance costs, create technical and regulatory challenges, and potentially hinder innovation and competitiveness, particularly for smaller UK companies.	Few
Preference for parental responsibility and education	Parental involvement, education, and digital literacy are considered more effective than government-imposed age restrictions for managing children’s use of AI chatbots.	Few
Negative impact on education and digital inclusion	Age restrictions could limit children’s access to educational resources, hinder learning and digital literacy, and worsen educational and social inequalities, especially for vulnerable groups.	Few
General opposition to AI chatbots and age restrictions	A very few advocated for a complete ban on AI chatbots or rejected the necessity of age restrictions, questioning their value in society.	Very few
Government overreach and impact on freedoms	Age restrictions may represent excessive government control, erode personal freedoms, interfere with family autonomy, and burden law-abiding users.	Very few
Unintended negative consequences and digital exclusion	Age restrictions could cause digital exclusion, loss of access to support services, or drive users to unregulated platforms, increasing inequality.	Very few
Support for targeted, proportionate regulation	Clear, proportionate, and targeted rules for AI chatbots or high-risk features were preferred to ensure safe and responsible use, rather than blanket bans.	Very few
Incentivising safer, child-friendly AI and industry responsibility	Age restrictions could encourage the development of safer, age-appropriate AI technologies and promote greater industry responsibility for user safety.	Very few
Reduction in academic dishonesty	Age restrictions are expected to decrease plagiarism, cheating, and misuse of AI for academic dishonesty among children, supporting genuine learning and academic integrity.	Very few
Reduction in AI’s environmental impact	Age restrictions may reduce AI’s environmental footprint by lowering energy and resource consumption, but could also increase infrastructure demands.	Very few
Need for further research and balanced regulation	More research, ongoing monitoring, and nuanced regulation are necessary to protect children effectively without imposing unnecessary restrictions.	Very few
No reason given	These responses did not provide substantive answers to the question.	Few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes. Subthemes include economic repercussions from nations where these companies are based, but feelings that this would be ‘worth it’; and reconnecting with the physical world and real people.	Very few

Email responses on chatbots and AI

Summary of responses:

Benefits of chatbots

• There was a widely held view across industry and civil society that AI chatbots offer significant benefits to children.
• Many respondents highlighted the educational benefits of chatbots. Some organisations noted that chatbots can make education more accessible for students with special educational needs or disabilities. Industry stakeholders flagged chatbots can help with learning and a civil society stakeholder responded that some students may feel more comfortable asking a chatbot for assistance compared to an adult.
• Several responses also highlighted that chatbots can be beneficial to children’s digital literacy. Submissions outlined how AI chatbots can help develop digital literacy, encourage an interest in STEM subjects, and prepare children for the use of chatbots in the world of work.
• Some civil society respondents noted that chatbots can offer children emotional support. Stakeholders noted that chatbots can help vulnerable children feel less lonely and provide support during difficult periods.
• Industry respondents also highlighted the benefits of chatbots for creativity and play. Respondents said chatbots can support storytelling, writing, idea generation, and hobbies, and can also be used as part of gaming and play.

Harms of chatbots

• Respondents also raised concerns around risks and harms to children from AI chatbots.

Harmful or age-inappropriate content

• Responses from civil society and industry raised concerns that chatbots can expose children to harmful or age-inappropriate content, including self-harm and suicide material, violent content, and harmful dieting advice. Stakeholders said chatbots can provide inaccurate, misleading, or hallucinatory responses, which children may trust too readily. This is risky when chatbots are used for advice on topics around health, safeguarding, relationships, or other sensitive issues. Stakeholders also raised risks around AI generated misinformation and deepfake content.

Grooming and child sexual abuse material

• Respondents also raised concerns around grooming and child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Romantic or sexual roleplay and grooming-like dynamics were flagged by stakeholders. One stakeholder reported that 50% of 59 companion chatbot platforms it tested displayed sexualised content on their landing page with no age gate. Concerns around chatbots creating CSAM were raised by many responses.

Features and functionalities

• Many respondents also noted features & functionalities of chatbots they argued are harmful to children. Both industry and civil society respondents raised concerns about emotional and psychological harms associated with some features offered by chatbots: for instance, which mimicked empathy, friendship, or romance. Civil society groups went further and noted issues with children developing emotional reliance on chatbots as a result of some features, including sycophantic behaviour, persistent memory and features designed to prolong engagement. These risks were argued to be especially prominent for vulnerable children. Some respondents highlighted how the embedding of chatbots within mainstream messaging platforms introduces new risk into services that are already widely used by children.

Privacy and data protection risks

• Respondents also raised privacy and data protection risks. Stakeholders warned children may share sensitive personal information with chatbots without understanding how that data is retained. Civil society stakeholders also heard concerns from children and young people about AI chatbot collection and retention of personal data, and the uncertainty around its future impacts.

Proposed mitigations

• Industry and civil society stakeholders proposed a range of mitigations to address harms to children. These are listed below.
• Minimum age requirements: A wide range of non-industry stakeholders supported risk-based minimum age requirements for access to chatbots. Some stakeholders advocated for a complete ban for under-13s on higher-risk services such as companionship chatbots, with older children being able to access services with protections in place. There were also calls for companion chatbots to not be accessible for under-18s with some advocating for a chatbot ban for under-16s.
• Restricting high-risk functionalities: Industry and civil society argued regulation should focus on higher-risk functionalities. This included the simulation of emotions, persistent memory, romantic or sexual roleplay, and features that encourage prolonged engagement.
• Restricting sensitive content: Both civil society and industry stakeholders supported restrictions on chatbots discussing sensitive topics. These responses included suggestions such as mental health, self-harm, and suicide, as well as sexual content.
• Transparency and signposting: Civil society stakeholders and industry proposed chatbots include clear reminders to users that they are interacting with AI. Some stakeholders called for chatbots to be required to generate mandatory wellbeing notices when users have been using chatbots for long periods. Stakeholders supported chatbots pointing children to appropriate services when they raised sensitive topics. One stakeholder called for watermarks to be placed on AI generated content to help users understand what content is AI generated.
• Safety by design: Civil society stakeholders called for chatbots to be subject to a broader regulatory regime requiring risk assessments and mitigations for identified harms. Stakeholders called for this to be achieved by bringing chatbots comprehensively into scope of the OSA. Industry stakeholders supported a risk based regulatory framework, noting this approach would provide certainty for businesses whilst also ensuring children and young people were protected regardless of any new technological developments or features that could emerge in the future.

Alignment with existing AI governance and regulation frameworks

• One response called for the UK to implement proposals that align with The Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law. The Convention requires countries that have ratified the framework (the UK has signed it) to ensure that AI systems align with principles that – among other things – require systems to operate safely and predictably. In addition, another stakeholder argued that all chatbots should adhere to the Department for Education AI Product Safety Standards for AI tools provided in education.

Further proposals

• Additionally, respondents proposed a range of further proposals to mitigate harms to children from chatbots. One stakeholder argued that the government should direct the ICO to extend its Children’s Code review to cover companion AI platforms. Some stakeholders also called for GenAI tools to be brought fully into scope of the OSA.
• One stakeholder argued that educating children on how chatbots function should be a key safeguard. They argued this would empower children to treat AI outputs as probabilistic and fallible rather than authoritative and to critically evaluate advice from AI chatbots.
• Another stakeholder called for independent pre-deployment safety testing and ongoing monitoring of AI models as a systemic requirement, and a further stakeholder proposed establishing a cross-sector AI regulator.

Exemptions and implications for businesses

• Industry and civil society stakeholders raised the implications for businesses of measures in this space. Industry stakeholders argued regulation should be tightly targeted at higher-risk chatbot services, rather than applying to all AI-enabled products or conversational tools. Industry respondents also warned broad legal or governmental definitions of chatbots or blanket regulations applied to all types of chatbots, rather than specific high-risk chatbots, could discourage or hinder chatbot innovation and testing.
• Stakeholders also suggested there could be market impacts in the gaming sector if regulations are too broad. They noted that restrictions affecting common in-game communications features could make some products less viable in the UK market.

Improving age assurance

In this section, we consulted on the effectiveness of age assurance (AA) systems in enforcing digital age restrictions. We asked about the impacts of increasing age checks online, including for adults, noting privacy and business costs. We also consulted on whether the public thinks that all users should have to use age assurance if it supports child online safety. We asked about how AA could be made more effective and workable, and what should be considered when reviewing the effectiveness of AA technologies.

Consultation response – question 31

1. To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “Adults should complete age checks more often, if it means children are safer online”?

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “Adults should complete age checks more often, if it means children are safer online”	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
Strongly agree	53%	11,645	74%	6,963
Somewhat agree	10%	2,069	10%	982
Neither agree nor disagree	3%	665	2%	219
Somewhat disagree	3%	635	2%	161
Strongly disagree	30%	6,513	11%	1,011
Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer	2%	329	1%	105
	answered	21,856		9,441
	skipped	2,678		620

Consultation response – question 32

1. What should be considered to make minimum age restrictions effective and workable? This could mean either age restrictions for access to whole services, or for specific risky or ‘addictive’ features or functionalities.

Summary of findings:

Some respondents noted that, for minimum age verification methods to be workable, they should be underpinned by systems that are reliable, secure and privacy-preserving, minimising data collection and ensuring that marginalised groups are not excluded.

Some respondents raised significant concerns about the effectiveness of age verification, questioning whether such measures can be sustained given children’s ability to circumvent them. Concerns were also raised about the potential negative impact on users’ rights to data privacy, including the transfer of personal data to companies based overseas, and about the risk of government overreach.

A small number of respondents emphasised that any age verification framework should include robust measures to prevent circumvention.

A small number of respondents raised how education and online literacy will be equally or more important in keeping children safe than enforcing online age verification. Respondents noted that tools include the proper use of existing parental controls to restrict device usage and these respondents tended to call for parental responsibility for children’s internet use to ensure compliance. A very few advocated for hardware-level enforced restrictions for children rather than online age verification.

In relation to enforcement, a few called for platforms to be made legally more accountable for failings to protect children online. A small number of respondents underlined how any age verification system must be evidenced and targeted to the highest risk features to children on platforms.

A very few raised the issue of how this is being handled globally, and a very few raised the need for technology experts to regularly review policy.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
Concerns about effectiveness and unintended consequences of age restrictions	There are significant concerns about the effectiveness of age restrictions, ease of circumvention, privacy risks, government overreach, and potential negative outcomes.	Some
Age verification must be robust, privacy-preserving, and accessible	Effective minimum age restrictions require reliable, secure, and privacy-preserving age verification systems that minimize data collection and avoid excluding marginalized groups.	Some
Age restrictions should be for whole services and limit circumvention	Age restriction systems should be for whole services and should be designed to prevent circumvention, while supporting accessibility and innovation.	A small number
Minimum age thresholds should be clear, proportionate, and risk-based	Age restrictions must be based on evidence, targeted to high-risk features to avoid unintended consequences.	A small number
Education and digital literacy are essential for compliance	Comprehensive education and awareness campaigns for parents, children, and the community about online risks and age restrictions support safe online behaviours.	A small number
Platforms must be legally accountable for enforcing age restrictions	Strong legal and regulatory frameworks, robust enforcement, and meaningful penalties are necessary to ensure platforms uphold effective age restrictions.	Few
Policies must be regularly reviewed and adapted with expert input	Age restriction policies and enforcement mechanisms should be updated and audited in consultation with experts to address technological changes and emerging risks.	Very few
International cooperation is helpful for effective enforcement	International cooperation, harmonised standards, and consideration of global legal frameworks are helpful to address cross-border challenges in age restriction enforcement.	Very few
No reason given	These responses did not provide substantive answers to the question.	Few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes. Subthemes include parental responsibility, alternatives to age verifying adults including device-based controls; government overreach; and that tech companies’ interests and profits should not be prioritised over safety.	Very few

Consultation response – question 33

1. What do you think the impacts might be from requiring age assurance across a greater number of online platforms? For example, impacts on the safety and wellbeing of children, or the impact for parents and carers, as well as other users. You could also comment on the impact on all users’ privacy and data or on business costs, revenue, and innovation.

Summary of findings:

The largest emerging theme from this question was related to the impacts of age assurance requirements on privacy and civil liberties. Some responses highlighted the potential link between requiring age assurance and increasing how much and how often personal data is collected, to privacy breaches, cyber-attacks, and the potential for this personal data to be exploited by malicious actors.

A small number of respondents raised that verification can be undermined by children using methods to circumvent it, alongside the possibility of displacing them to unregulated platforms. Similarly, a very few questioned how age verification would realistically be enforced and managed, given the limitations and vulnerabilities of existing methods.

A small number of respondents raised the possibility of businesses no longer operating in the UK as a probable impact and a very few noted the potential for platforms to receive reduced revenues.

Some respondents positively linked requiring more platforms to age assure to benefits to children’s online safety, although many of these responses also mentioned issues of friction and data privacy. Additionally, a few referenced changes in the role and responsibilities of parents if less children use online platforms.

A small number of respondents thought that more age assurance may lead to digital exclusion for marginalised adults and children being unable to access online resources and communities for issues such disability, mental health, domestic abuse, or for LGBTQ issues, alongside increased friction and reduced convenience for adults.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
Heightened privacy and civil liberties risks	Mandatory age assurance is expected to increase personal data collection, risk privacy breaches, erode anonymity, enable surveillance, and threaten civil liberties, especially for vulnerable users.	Some
Improved child safety and parental confidence	Expanding age assurance is anticipated to enhance children’s safety and wellbeing by reducing exposure to harmful content.	Some
Increased digital exclusion, friction and user inconvenience	Age assurance requirements are likely to create barriers for adults, low-income, and vulnerable users who lack identification or digital resources, leading to exclusion and reduced platform usage.	A small number
Higher business costs and reduced market competition	Age assurance is expected to increase compliance costs and administrative burdens for businesses, especially smaller platforms, potentially stifling innovation, reducing competition, and causing market withdrawal.	A small number
Risk of circumvention undermining effectiveness or displacement to less regulated platforms	Age assurance measures may be easily bypassed, particularly by children, reducing their effectiveness or potentially driving users to less regulated platforms.	A small number
Parents would need to take more responsibility	Parents would need to take more responsibility and have more oversight over children’s online use.	Few
Minimal or uncertain impact expected	Some anticipated that age assurance will have little or uncertain impact, especially if implementation is well-targeted and users adapt over time.	Very few
Implementation and enforcement difficulties	Age assurance faces significant technical, logistical, and legal challenges, including limitations of current technologies.	Very few
Loss of revenue for services	Age assurance may lead to less revenue for platforms.	Very few
Children should retain platform access	Some believe children should have unrestricted access to online platforms and that age assurance restrictions are unnecessary.	Very few
Children’s data better protected	Age assurance proposals may decrease the amount of data collected from children by platforms, lowering risks associated with data harvesting and privacy breaches for minors.	Very few
Trial period and ongoing evaluation needed	A trial period and continuous assessment are recommended to evaluate the effectiveness and impacts of age assurance before full implementation.	Very few
No reason given	These responses did not provide substantive answers to the question.	Very few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes. Subthemes include censorship and freedom; government overreach; experiencing different childhoods, technology companies’ reduced influence.	Very few

Consultation response – question 34

1. How, if at all, could age assurance be made more effective?

Summary of findings:

Responses suggest no single solution dominates, with a mix of measures suggested. A small number emphasised parental responsibility as the best solution, highlighting the need for greater supervision, education, and stronger parental controls alongside technology.

Scepticism about effectiveness of age assurance remains notable with a small number of respondents citing concerns about circumvention and limited benefits, while a small number of respondents expressed outright opposition, with these responses often noting an aversion to digital IDs. Technical solutions received support, including a small number who supported using official documents, but a small number were also interested in prioritising privacy and data protection, suggesting a desire for secure, low‑intrusion systems.

Structural approaches also featured. A small number of respondents called for stronger regulation and platform accountability, and a few favoured government-led or national ID systems. A few suggested more layered approaches and advocated for combining verification methods. A few respondents also suggested other approaches, including inbuilt device or network-level controls and improved education and digital literacy.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
Emphasising parental responsibility and controls	Parents should play a central role in age assurance through supervision, education, robust parental controls, consent, and legal accountability, with technical measures as complementary.	A small number
Expressing scepticism about the effectiveness of age assurance	There is doubt regarding the effectiveness, enforceability, and technical feasibility of age assurance, with concerns about circumvention and limited safety benefits.	A small number
Using official documents for age verification	Effective age assurance requires the use of official documents (e.g. photo ID, passports, birth certificates).	A small number
Prioritising privacy and data protection	Age assurance systems must minimise data collection, reduce friction, and use privacy-preserving solutions to prevent surveillance, breaches, or misuse.	A small number
Opposing age assurance	Opposition reflects concerns that age assurance is unnecessary or undesirable, often linked to risks of government overreach or impacts on civil liberties.	A small number
Strengthening regulation and platform accountability	Effective age assurance requires robust regulation, standardisation, independent oversight, regular audits, and meaningful penalties to hold platforms and service providers accountable.	A small number
Delivering age assurance through a government led service, national ID or digital passport	Age assurance should be delivered through centralised government run solutions (e.g. national ID or digital passports) rather than third party providers, to reduce data breach risks and ensure high, standardised levels of assurance.	Few
Implementing multi-layered age verification methods	Improve effectiveness of age verification checks by deploying multi-layered age verification methods at once (e.g. photo ID and age estimation).	Few
Applying device, platform, and network-level controls	Age assurance can be strengthened by implementing controls at device, app store, operating system, router, or ISP/network level, with built-in restrictions and parental management to prevent circumvention and reduce data sharing.	Few
Enhancing education and digital literacy	Education and awareness campaigns for parents, children, and the public about online safety, digital literacy, and age restrictions are essential complements to technical solutions.	Few
Preventing circumvention and identity fraud	Measures such as blocking VPNs, detecting identity fraud, and ongoing verification are necessary to maintain the effectiveness of age assurance systems.	Few
Offering flexible and alternative verification methods	Providing less invasive, creative, or flexible verification options including self-declaration, credit card checks, parent-led or community-driven verification, and platform design changes can accommodate diverse users and avoid exclusion.	Very few
Raising age thresholds and implementing bans	Increasing age thresholds or restricting access for under-16s or under-18s, including outright bans on social media, devices, or apps for children, especially in schools, is advocated to enhance safety.	Very few
Leveraging expert input and continuous improvement	Effective age assurance requires ongoing research, evaluation, and adaptation as technologies and risks evolve, alongside the involvement of technical experts and industry specialists to design, assess, and refine robust, up-to-date solutions.	Very few
Adopting risk-based and layered approaches	Age assurance systems should combine multiple methods and focus stronger checks on high-risk services, while minimising friction and data collection for low-risk contexts.	Very few
Learning from international and cross-sector examples	Drawing on experiences from other countries and sectors like banking or passports can help identify best practices and avoid known pitfalls in age assurance.	Very few
Addressing accessibility and risk of exclusion	Strict age assurance requirements may unfairly exclude disadvantaged users or those without access to required documents or technology, risking digital exclusion and negatively impacting user experience.	Very few
No reason given	These responses did not provide substantive answers to the question.	Few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes. Sub-themes include tech companies being held responsible, the importance of parental involvement, and promoting age assurance as a positive, rather than a negative restriction, to change behaviours.	Very few

Consultation response – question 35

1. What should be considered when assessing the effectiveness of age-verification and age-assurance technologies?

Summary of findings:

The most prevalent theme related to data protection and privacy, which some respondents cited as a key consideration when assessing the effectiveness of age verification and age assurance technologies. This included concerns about where personal information is stored and how privacy and security are maintained.

Some respondents referenced the risk of circumvention, with a number of these responses highlighting the relative ease with which existing verification measures can be bypassed.

A small number of respondents identified the need to consider alternative approaches to age verification and age assurance. Examples cited included parental consent mechanisms, allowing parents or guardians to determine age of access, and the use of parental controls.

In addition to responses identifying factors to consider when assessing the effectiveness of these technologies, a small number of respondents expressed opposition to the use of age verification and age assurance altogether. Within these responses, concerns were frequently raised about the risk of data leaks or personal data being compromised.

A further theme referenced by respondents was the case for regulating content itself, rather than restricting access by age.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
Accuracy and effectiveness, with rigorous privacy, data protection, and security	Age-verification systems must be accurate and effective, while rigorously protecting user privacy and data, minimising collection and retention, ensuring robust cybersecurity, complying with data protection laws, and safeguarding against misuse, breaches, and surveillance risks.	Some
Effective, accurate, and circumvention-resistant systems	Age-verification technologies should reliably prevent underage access, minimize errors, and be robust against circumvention and manipulation across all demographics.	Some
Opposition due to civil liberties and privacy concerns	Critics expressed scepticism or opposition to age-verification, citing concerns about necessity, effectiveness, privacy, surveillance, government overreach, and impacts on civil liberties and free speech.	A small number
Alternative and complementary approaches including parental involvement	Non-technological measures such as parental controls and responsibility, education, device-level controls, and broader safety strategies should be considered alongside or instead of technological age-verification, with parents playing an active role.	A small number
Prioritising child safety and harm reduction	The main objective is to protect children from harmful content and online risks, with effectiveness measured by reductions in harm, improvements in wellbeing, and a focus on children’s mental health.	Few
Proportionality and risk-based approach respecting civil liberties	Measures should be proportionate to the risk posed, ethically justified, avoid excessive intrusiveness, respect civil liberties and lawful adult access, and balance child protection with user rights.	Few
Ensuring usability, accessibility, and fairness	Age-verification technologies should be user-friendly, accessible to all including those with disabilities or lacking standard ID, avoid undue burdens or discrimination, and be independently tested for fairness and inclusivity.	Few
Transparency, oversight, and accountability required	Age-verification systems must operate with transparent processes, independent government-linked oversight, regular audits, and clear accountability to ensure compliance and public trust.	Few
Consideration of technical and alternative methods	The assessment should include biometrics, privacy-preserving solutions, and the feasibility of alternative or complementary verification systems.	Very few
Legal and regulatory compliance required	Age-verification systems must comply with relevant laws and regulations, including GDPR and platform accountability, and assign clear responsibility and liability for breaches or misuse.	Very few
Cost-effectiveness and economic feasibility	Implementation should be cost-effective, scalable, and feasible for all platforms, avoiding disproportionate burdens especially on small businesses and considering broader economic implications.	Very few
Continuous evaluation and adaptability needed	Age-verification systems should undergo ongoing monitoring, independent review, real-world testing, and evidence-based updates to remain effective and address emerging risks.	Very few
Stakeholder and expert engagement necessary	Design and assessment should involve input from a broad range of stakeholders including children, parents, privacy specialists, and independent experts to ensure practical and trusted solutions.	Very few
Support for national digital ID	Advocates endorsed the introduction of a national digital ID or ID card to facilitate secure and effective age verification.	Very few
Learning from international approaches and comparable regulatory models	Design and assessment of age verification technologies should draw on lessons from international implementation and past evidence, as well as comparable regulatory approaches (e.g. alcohol, smoking, and gambling), while accounting for differences in legal, cultural, and global digital contexts.	Very few
No reason given	These responses did not provide substantive answers to the question.	Few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes. Subthemes include focusing on content rather than age, highlighted the benefits of social media, the challenges of regulating AI, and the risks of outsourcing age assurance outside the UK.	Very few

Email responses on improving age assurance

Summary of responses:

• Respondents recognised that AA was important for providing age-appropriate digital experiences but considered that it needs to be deployed alongside wider safety measures and is not a ‘silver bullet’ or standalone solution.

Proportionality

• Respondents agreed that AA should be proportionate to the risk of harm. There was consensus that AA benefits need to be balanced with trade-offs, particularly privacy and user friction. Many stakeholders suggested that lower-risk services should be able to use lower-confidence and less invasive AA measures, whereas higher-confidence measures such as HEAA should be targeted at platforms or services with the highest levels of risk.
• Some organisations pointed to evidence suggesting that parents are supportive of adults doing more age checks if it leads to improved child safety online. Some gave a view that more age checks are justified if children are made safer. One stakeholder disputed the presumption that more checks will automatically produce better child-safety outcomes, and many individuals opposed mandatory age checks. Others stated that a focus on ensuring services are safe by design is preferable to relying on age checks.

Privacy-preserving

• Significant concerns were raised from civil society, industry, regulators and individuals about the privacy implications of AA and the potential for data breaches. Many responses referenced a widely publicised data breach as an example. Several organisations presented these risks as a trade-off for government to be aware of if increasing the use of age checks. There was an emphasis that AA use should be consistent with UK data protection legislation, should avoid excessive data collection, and be transparent in data handling practices.
• Respondents also highlighted the potential impact on children and young people’s data and privacy, as well as on adults.

Centralised age-assurance

• Stakeholders were generally supportive of device, operating system, or app store-level AA to complement platform-level AA. This would allow a user, or a parent or carer, to verify their age on their device or operating systems, and for an age token to be generated that could then be shared as the user accesses different apps and services on their device.
• Key cited benefits were that this would reduce friction and be easier to use, particularly for parents and carers, this was a view held by industry and civil society. Stakeholders also felt this would have privacy benefits, reducing the need to share personal information with multiple services, and enabling APIs and Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs, a cryptographic method that allows one party to prove age without providing underlying data). Industry noted that this would also benefit developers.
• There was the recognition that device or operating system-level AA could support wider child safety interventions, particularly device-level nudity detection.
• Some industry stakeholders noted there is not a consensus within the sector on where AA responsibility should sit, and some tech companies caution against device or operating system-level AA, instead recommending a system-wide approach. However, there was strong support for device, operating system, and app store-level AA from civil society and industry providers of online services.
• There was support from a range of respondents for interoperable AA solutions, including digital wallets, standardised APIs, and use of ZKP to reduce friction and compliance costs.

Accessibility, inclusion and future methods

• There was consensus that no single AA approach is sufficient for all users. Stakeholders noted that, for AA to be accessible, users should have multiple ways to verify their age, and requiring use of photo ID alone should be avoided, as photo ID is not universally accessible and could disadvantage users from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Some stakeholders also raised concerns about the accuracy and effectiveness of age assurance methods like facial age estimation for people from minority ethnic backgrounds and for users with disabilities.
• Multiple stakeholders noted the benefits of a layered approach to AA, building understanding of users’ ages through multiple data sources. Industry highlighted use of age inference models to assess user behaviour over time, noting benefits including lower user friction, reduced personal data processing, and improved accessibility.
• Stakeholders stressed the need for regulation to remain future-proofed, to allow for evolving methods.

Clarity on expectations of AA

• Stakeholders called for clear standards for what constitutes effective AA, to support compliance by clarifying best-practice expectations, and to improve user trust and uptake of AA.
• Responses suggested that standards should cover accuracy, reliability, transparency, robustness and accessibility. Stakeholders felt that effectiveness should look at ongoing, system-wide deployment of AA in practice, rather than accuracy of specific tools in isolation.
• Some, particularly civil society, called for numerical thresholds of accuracy and certification schemes to demonstrate compliance with standards. There was support for further transparency on service’s use of AA to help understand effectiveness.
• Industry and civil society noted the importance of regulatory consistency, calling for future requirements to align with the OSA, alongside clarity on the roles and responsibilities of Ofcom and the ICO.
• Some called for clearer standards on whether users should be allowed multiple attempts to complete age checks.

Burden on services and industry engagement

• Stakeholders noted the cost on services of AA processes, particularly for smaller or low-risk companies, with some noting that this risks an increased dominance of big tech companies.
• Stakeholders emphasised the need for future requirements to be informed by evidence and industry engagement to ensure future requirements are technically feasible. Some highlighted Ofcom’s upcoming statutory report on age assurance as an important source of evidence.

Circumvention of age limits

The consultation sought views on how children may circumvent online safety rules, including via virtual private networks (VPNs), and the extent to which action should be taken to address them. It asked which interventions should be prioritised, including education for children or restricting children’s access to VPNs.

Additionally, the consultation explored whether VPNs should be subject to age assurance requirements and the potential impacts of doing so. It invited views on how age restrictions on VPNs could be made effective and workable.

Additionally, the consultation explored whether VPNs should be subject to age assurance requirements and the potential impacts of doing so. It invited views on how age restrictions on VPNs could be made effective and workable.

Consultation response – question 36

1. What methods to circumvent online safety rules do you think children in the UK use, beyond Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), or similar technologies?

Summary of findings:

The most frequently cited method of circumvention, referenced by some of respondents, related to children using the accounts and identities of others. Respondents identified a range of approaches within this category, including children borrowing the devices, accounts or identification documents of parents, older siblings or friends to bypass age restrictions.

A small number of respondents pointed to the use of technical tools as a means of circumvention, citing specific examples such as proxy servers, the Tor network and privacy-focused browsers. Some highlighted children’s general technical adaptability, expressing the view that children will continue to identify new workarounds regardless of the controls in place.

Additional methods identified by a few respondents included assistance from parents and carers and migration to alternative platforms that lack effective age verification. Very few identified disabling parental and technical controls and the sharing of circumvention methods through peer networks.

However, a few respondents did not identify a specific method of circumvention and instead used their response to raise objections to the consultation itself or to the Online Safety Act. A very few expressed the view that circumvention is not a significant concern. Some respondents did not provide a substantive answer to this question, with the majority of these indicating that they were not aware of any additional methods used by children in the UK to circumvent online safety rules.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response share
Using others accounts and identities	Children can bypass online safety age restrictions by using the accounts, devices, or the identities of their parents, siblings, older friends, or other adults. This may be by using or asking friends or family old enough to access age restricted content to borrow their devices or forms of identification.	Some
Technical tools	Children employ a wide range of technical tools and methods including proxies, Tor, privacy browsers, incognito modes, jailbreaking, and exploiting software loopholes to bypass online safety measures and access restricted content.	A small number
Children’s technical adaptability	Children’s ability to be highly resourceful and technologically adept, persistently finding new and innovative ways to circumvent online safety rules regardless of the controls in place, including using special language or codes. This response also includes a belief that there are always some children that get around age requirements regardless of what the restriction is for.	A small number
Assistance from parents and carers	Assistance from parents and carers to bypass age assurance, as well as lack of supervision or insufficient oversight from parents making it easier for children to bypass online safety rules.	Few
Using platforms without age checks	Children migrating to alternative, or unmoderated websites, platforms, and app stores which are not complying with Online Safety Act regulations and do not have highly effective age assurance on their sites. This could include services which are avoiding UK online safety rules, or are perhaps less regulated. These may increase children’s risk of harm including possibility for access dark web, and exploitation by gangs or malicious actors	Few
Objections to consultation, policy or Online Safety Act	These responses did not outline other ways children could circumvent age assurance but instead outlined their objection to the consultation question, disagree with the Online Safety Act and online censorship, or question the appropriateness or technical nature of the consultation process.	Few
Peer networks promote knowledge sharing	Children learn and share circumvention techniques through friends, online tutorials, social media, messaging groups, and collaborative platforms, including redistributing restricted content and persuading others to help bypass restrictions.	Very few
Circumvention is not a major issue	Some express a view that circumvention of age assurance and the online safety rules is not a significant issue and not happening at the scale some suggest. They also express apathy towards the topic.	Very few
Disabling parental and technical controls	Whilst not explicitly about bypassing online safety rules, many responses outlined that children bypass or disable parental controls and device restrictions by manipulating settings, knowing or guessing parental passwords, using guest or incognito modes, using mobile data rather than Wi-Fi, or factory resetting devices to gain access to restricted content that their parents have attempted to restrict them from.	Very few
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question	Some
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes.	Very few

Consultation response – question 37

1. Which of the options below do you think the government should prioritise to reduce circumvention of online safety rules in the UK? (Please select the most important one to you)

Which of the options below do you think the government should prioritise to reduce circumvention of online safety rules in the UK? (Please select the most important one to you)	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
More education for children	38%	8,165	35%	3,153
Restricting children’s access to VPNs	34%	7,241	46%	4,222
None of the above	12%	2,545	5%	483
Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer	5%	1,038	6%	528
Other (please specify):	11%	2,315	8%	757
	answered	21,304		9,143
	skipped	3,230		918

Summary of ‘other’ responses

A small number of respondents provided additional context to their responses with free text. The themes below each represent a very few responses.

Of the responses, a very few recommended education of children as the primary method of preventing of circumvention, including education or enhanced media literacy for children and families.

Several responses advocated restricting children from accessing the internet, smartphones, or VPNs to prevent them bypassing online safety rules. Respondents also supported stronger regulation and accountability for technology companies and online platforms to enforce online safety rules and prevent circumvention, including online platforms being prevented from hosting harmful content on their services.

On the other hand, several respondents opposed government intervention, raising concerns around privacy and surveillance.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response share
Education for children as primary prevention	Comprehensive education or enhanced media literacy for children and families about online safety, the risks and responsible behaviour online. Considered the most effective way to reduce circumvention of online safety rules, especially when combined with technical measures.	Very few
Restrict children’s access to VPNs	Restricting children’s access to VPNs and circumvention tools are proposed to prevent children from bypassing online safety rules, this includes restricting children of a certain age from using VPNs, and requiring VPN providers to implement age assurance so they know the age of their user.	Very few
Parental responsibility but more support and education required	Parents are viewed as primarily responsible for their children’s online safety. These responses include calls for parental education on VPNs, mandatory use of parental controls, and support to empower parents in this role. They also outline the view that parents should be responsible for keeping children safe online not the government.	Very few
Opposing government intervention and technical restrictions	There is scepticism about the effectiveness of technical restrictions aimed to prevent circumvention, and particularly concerns about a possible ban of VPNs or age gating them. This encompasses concerns about privacy, surveillance, and government overreach, leading to opposition to such interventions. There is also concern about online safety rules and the Online Safety Act in general.	Very few
Holding technology companies accountable	Stronger regulation and accountability for technology companies and online platforms is advocated to enforce online safety rules and prevent circumvention. Prevent technology companies from hosting harmful content on their sites.	Very few
Advocating radical or specific measures	Suggestions included introducing blanket bans for children on internet or smartphone use, including smartphone ban in schools. Suggestions also include supporting bringing in Digital ID or digital ID checks for children, as well as increased law enforcement to address online safety concerns.	Very few
Prioritising enforcement of existing rules	Stronger enforcement of current online safety regulations is seen as preferable to introducing new measures, with an emphasis on ensuring compliance and effectiveness.	Very few
Investment in offline activities	Solutions put forward focus on increasing investment me and offering more offline activities. This could include youth clubs and making outside spaces safer for children, community initiatives and better facilities for children. Reducing children’s incentive and motivation to spend too much time online.	Very few
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question	Very few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes	Very few

Consultation response – question 38

1. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “Everyone should go through age checks to access a VPN if it would prevent children using them”?

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “Everyone should go through age checks to access a VPN if it would prevent children using them”?	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
Strongly agree	47%	10,154	67%	6,201
Somewhat agree	9%	1,948	11%	990
Neither agree nor disagree	3%	650	3%	293
Somewhat disagree	3%	580	2%	196
Strongly disagree	35%	7,503	14%	1,256
Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer	3%	566	3%	261
	answered	21,401		9,197
	skipped	3,133		864

Consultation response – question 39

1. What do you think the impacts would be if VPNs were age-restricted? For example, impacts on the safety and wellbeing of children, or the impact for parents and carers, as well as other users. You could also comment on the impact on all users’ privacy and data or on business costs, revenue, and innovation.

Summary of findings:

Respondents most frequently raised concerns in response to this question. The most prevalent theme, cited by some respondents, related to heightened risks to privacy, security and civil liberties. A further small number of respondents expressed concern about the negative impact on legitimate individual uses of VPNs, with specific reference to journalists, whistleblowers and vulnerable groups who rely on such tools. A few raised concerns about government overreach, while a similar proportion identified potential harm to businesses and the wider economy.

A significant proportion of respondents also questioned the practical effectiveness of any such policy. A small number considered that restrictions on VPNs would be technically ineffective and easily bypassed. Few expressed concern that such measures could push children toward less safe alternatives, including free VPN services, the Tor network or the dark web, while few felt that the overall impact of the policy would be minimal or unclear.

By contrast, a substantial minority of respondents identified potential benefits. Some considered that VPN restrictions would lead to improved child safety and greater parental control over children’s online activity. A very few cited greater parental confidence, a reduction in crime and scams, and positive market developments as additional potential benefits.

Several respondents also put forward alternative approaches. Few suggested that better-designed or alternative age verification methods should be explored in place of VPN restrictions. A few expressed a preference for approaches centred on parental responsibility and education. Very few advocated for targeting content providers rather than VPN users, while very few drew comparisons with existing age restriction frameworks in other contexts.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response share
Heightened privacy, security, and civil liberties risks	Age-restricting VPNs would undermine privacy, increase surveillance and data breach risks, threaten civil liberties and digital rights, and disproportionately impact vulnerable groups and legitimate users.	Some
Improved child safety and parental control	Age-restricting VPNs could make it harder for children to access harmful content and bypass online safety measures, potentially improving child safety and empowering parents and carers.	Some
Negative impact on legitimate use cases	Restricting or age gating VPNs would have a negative impact and disrupt legitimate uses for adults. This includes for journalists, whistle blowers, and vulnerable groups. It will reduce or limit their access to privacy and support resources.	A small number
Technical ineffectiveness	Age restrictions on VPNs would be difficult to enforce, difficult to legislate, easily bypassed, and could drive users toward unsafe alternatives, rendering the policy largely ineffective.	A small number
Negative impact on businesses and economic harm	Age gating or restricting VPNs could have an impact on businesses, and workers including remote workers. Corporate or industry VPNs are often crucial, and many businesses rely on VPNs for security. This could cause economic harm and reduce innovation.	Few
Increased risk of government overreach	Age-restricting VPNs could lead to excessive government control, erode public trust, infringe on personal freedoms, and result in censorship and mass surveillance, raising concerns about authoritarian practices.	Few
Minimal or unclear impact of VPN age restrictions	Age-restricting VPNs would have little to no effect, or the benefits and drawbacks are difficult to weigh, making the policy’s impact uncertain. Some respondents are unclear what the impact would be as they know little about VPNs or whether children use them.	Few
Increased online risk for children	There is likely to be increased online risks. Restricting VPNs may drive users, including children, to less secure or malicious alternatives, increasing exposure to scams, malware, and cyber threats. This could include unsafe free VPNs, Tor and the dark web.	Few
Alternative age verification methods and standardisation	Less intrusive, standardised, or separate age verification methods should be used to protect user privacy and reduce confusion if restrictions are implemented. Concerns that current age verification is risky and can be strengthened. Age verification on VPNs undermines the purpose of VPNs.	Few
Preference for parental responsibility and education	Instead of age gating or age restricting VPNS children’s online safety should be managed by parents, schools and education rather than government-imposed restrictions, or alongside this.	Very few
International comparisons and precedents	The UK following the example of countries that are less democratic or have restrictive internet policies is problematic and could impact freedom of information and global reputation.	Very few
Parental confidence in children’s online safety	Restricting children’s access to VPNs will reassurance parents that their children are safe online and are better able to monitor their children’s online activity.	Very few
Potential for crime and scam reduction	Age-restricting VPNs could reduce crime happening online, reduce online scams and reduce access to illegal content by limiting anonymous access. Criminality could be better monitored.	Very few
Policy should target content providers, not VPN users	Efforts to protect children online should focus on restricting harmful content at the source rather than limiting VPN access.	Very few
Comparison to existing age restrictions	Age-restricting VPNs is viewed as similar to other age-restricted products and seen as a reasonable or manageable policy.	Very few
Potential for positive market and policy developments	Restricting VPNs could drive innovation in privacy-preserving age verification technologies and position the UK as a leader in online safety.	Very few
Calls for broader technology restrictions for children	Restricting children’s access to technology more broadly, not just VPNs, is advocated until a certain age.	Very few
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question	Few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes	Very few

Consultation response – question 40

1. What should be considered to make age-restricting VPNs effective and workable? For example, public trust and engagement with increased age assurance requirements, accessibility of age assurance methods and variations of age assurance approaches across services, interaction with legitimate uses of VPNs.

Responses to this question were dominated by opposition to the proposal rather than design suggestions. The most prevalent theme, cited by some respondents, was widespread opposition to the idea in principle. A further small number expressed the view that any such measure would be technically impractical and unworkable. Concerns about privacy, civil liberties and data protection were raised by a small number of respondents, while few highlighted the potential for harm to legitimate individual users.

Where respondents engaged constructively with the question, the most frequently cited consideration, referenced by a small number of respondents, was that any age assurance mechanism must first be proven to be robust, privacy-preserving and accessible before implementation. A further small number expressed a preference for approaches centred on parental responsibility and education rather than technical restrictions. Few emphasised the need to improve public trust in age assurance technologies as a prerequisite for any policy intervention.

Very few reported additional suggestions. These included calls for clear enforcement frameworks, stronger regulation and greater provider accountability, and few reported the need for expert input given the degree of uncertainty surrounding the policy area. Very few respondents advocated for a direct ban on VPN use by children as an alternative approach, while a further very few cited child safety as the overriding justification for action in this area.

Very few proportions of respondents raised concerns about the potential impact on competition and harm to business VPN services, while very few drew links to the broader framework for social media regulation.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response share
Opposition	Opposition to the notion of requiring VPNs to age gate and the question in the first instance, citing this as government overreach, surveillance and state control of the internet	A small number
Technical impracticality	Age restricting VPNs is fundamentally unworkable and impracticable, there is an ease of circumvention and people will always be able to get around it.	A small number
Improving age assurance	Before age restrictions on VPNs are implemented age assurance needs to be proven to be robust, privacy-preserving and accessible. Systems must use strong, secure, privacy-preserving, and accessible age assurance methods that minimise data collection and user burden, with alternatives for those lacking formal ID.	A small number
Preference for parental responsibility and education	Parental controls, education, digital literacy, device-level safeguards, and public awareness are considered more effective for child safety than government-imposed VPN restrictions.	A small number
Threats to privacy, civil liberties, and data protection	Age-restricting VPNs would undermine user privacy, threaten civil liberties, require intrusive data collection, and increase risks of surveillance and data breaches.	A small number
Negative impact on legitimate individual users	Age-restrictions on VPNs would harm legitimate individual users and legitimate use cases, vulnerable groups and would require protection of lawful use.	Few
Uncertainty and need for expert input	Respondents are unsure how this could be made workable and suggest the government should consult with the experts.	Few
Improving public trust in age assurance	Before implementing age assurance on VPNs there needs to be improved public trust in the safety and accuracy of age assurance. Building public trust and engagement are required for this to be effective and accepted.	Few
Enforcement, regulation, and provider accountability required	Effective age restriction of VPNs would require clear legal frameworks, robust enforcement such as fines, provider accountability, and international and industry-wide coordination to ensure compliance. The systems should be regularly reviewed to make sure they are complying.	Very few
Direct ban or restriction of VPNs for children	Banning VPNs for children (either under 18s or under 16s) or restricting providers is suggested as a direct enforcement measure by a minority. This includes banning free VPNs and banning devices from downloading VPNs.	Very few
Child safety as a primary justification	If age gating VPNs can protection children and reduce online harm, then that should be the main justification for action including age gating VPNs. Even if they are not sure how this should be done, it is deemed the right option if it does protect children.	Very few
Increased risk of unintended harm and reduced competition	Age restrictions on VPNs could drive users to unsafe alternatives, disadvantage smaller providers, reduce competition, and cause negative societal side effects.	Very few
Negative impact on VPNs used by businesses	Age restrictions on VPNs would harm businesses, professionals and critical infrastructure used for cybersecurity. There would be a need to have clear exemptions in any legislation.	Very few
Consistency with social media bans	VPNs are considered a separate issue to the social media ban. VPNs should either be regulated in a similar way to social media, or the focus should be on social media companies and platforms instead.	Very few
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question	Few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes	Very few

Email responses on circumvention of age limits

Circumvention Methods

• Respondents identified a wide range of circumvention methods beyond VPNs. Many emphasised that the most common approaches are non-technical. This included false age declarations, use of adult accounts or devices, and shared logins. Some also highlighted more technical methods such as proxy services, alternative DNS configurations, and use of the Tor browser.
• Several respondents noted that circumvention is a predictable and inevitable outcome of age restrictions. Industry and civil society stakeholders argued that children will continue to adapt and share knowledge of workarounds, and a number also highlighted the role of parents or peers in facilitating circumvention.

Approaches to reducing circumvention

• There was broad agreement that no single measure will prevent circumvention. Technology and industry stakeholders supported a layered approach, combining technical measures, parental controls, and education. Many argued that strengthening safety protections across services would better mitigate risks, including where children attempt to access from different locations.
• Many stakeholders across civil society and industry supported education and digital literacy, arguing that children are less likely to circumvent safeguards if they understand their purpose. Others emphasised the importance of parental engagement and education in schools.
• Many stakeholders argued that responsibility for addressing circumvention should sit with platforms rather than infrastructure providers. They highlighted the role of service level protections, including robust age assurance and safety by design. Some technology companies also outlined their existing measures to detect underage users, including age inference techniques
• Several stakeholders emphasised the importance of effective age assurance to support and minimise circumvention. Some advocated for device level or app store level age assurance, which were viewed as harder to circumvent than platform level age checks or targeting tools such as VPNs.
• A small number of industry stakeholders highlighted a role for government in improving platform transparency, including how platforms detect and manage underage users and the resources dedicated to this work. Some also called for greater collaboration between government and industry to define standards for robust and trustworthy VPN services.

Impact of circumvention on policy-making

• Several civil society respondents pointed to the high risk of circumvention as an argument against blunt age-based restrictions. Organisations argued that fundamental challenges with age assurance mean safety-by-design measures are more effective than age-based restrictions. Another stakeholder argued that full compliance is unrealistic, and platforms should therefore be designed on the basis that children are present and require protection, advocating for increased safety-by-design. Concerns were raised by stakeholders that blanket age-based restrictions would not be effective, while still imposing significant interferences with adult and child rights.
• Organisations representing children also suggested the ease of circumvention undermined arguments to pursue age-based restrictions. This argument was echoed by industry responses, who argued that children who successfully circumvented age-assurance methods would be exposed to platforms with weaker safeguards, leaving them worse-off than before.
• However, other stakeholders noted the ease of circumvention was not a reason not to pursue it. One stakeholder likened restrictions to those on alcohol and gambling, which are circumvented yet age restrictions still materially changed behaviours and attitudes around underage access.

Age gating VPNs

• Specifically in relation to VPNs, there was strong opposition to age gating across respondents. Stakeholders across civil society and industry emphasised that there are legitimate reasons for children to use VPNs, including accessing online education and protecting sensitive communications. Some stressed that restrictions could disproportionately affect vulnerable groups such as LGBTQ+ youth, or those experiencing domestic abuse.

While most respondents opposed age gating VPNs, a small number proposed more targeted alternatives. This included restricting children’s ability to download VPN apps via app stores or strengthening platform level detection of circumvention. Impacts of age gating VPNs

• Stakeholders highlighted unintended consequences of age gating VPNs, with data privacy a central concern. They argued that requiring VPN services to implement age assurance would require additional data collection, which would undermine the purpose of VPNs and create new security risks.
• Separately, stakeholders emphasised the role VPNs play in supporting cybersecurity and user protection online. Stakeholders warned that restrictions could undermine protection against tracking, surveillance, and fraud. One stakeholder noted some Deaf BSL users use VPNs to access geo-blocked BSL content and Deaf community resources and argued that any VPN restrictions must include exemptions for accessibility and legitimate uses.
• Stakeholders also highlighted the risk of displacement, including shifts towards less regulated or higher risk VPN services, as well as more technical circumvention methods. Industry also noted this could lead users to parts of the internet that are less visible and not designed with children in mind, and that it could encourage greater secrecy in children who use VPNs.
• Some industry stakeholders questioned the technical feasibility of age gating VPNs, citing challenges in identifying UK users alongside potential impacts on businesses and legitimate uses.

Proportionality and evidence base

• Stakeholders consistently framed their responses in terms of proportionality and the underlying evidence base referencing limited evidence that children use VPNs to circumvent online safety measures at scale. Many cautioned against interventions that are not aligned with the scale of the problem.
• Finally, the majority of stakeholders called for further research into how children use VPNs and other circumvention tools, and the effectiveness of existing age assurance measures. Many argued that, based on current evidence, age gating VPNs would not be a proportionate response, and that policy makers should consider both the evidence base and the wider role of VPNs in supporting privacy and security when assessing any potential interventions.

Additional measures

• Respondents also suggested a range of additional measures related to age assurance and circumvention. A number of responses proposed that age assurance at device/OS-level could support wider child safety interventions, particularly nudity-detection technologies on children’s devices. Adult users could use device-level age assurance to turn off these technologies.
• Respondents also proposed greater collaboration between government and industry to define standards for robust and trustworthy VPN services. This included distinguishing between reputable and higher-risk providers through industry-led frameworks and government guidance.
• Respondents also argued for bringing app stores into scope of regulation to apply age checks where children seek to download VPN applications. Others emphasised that app store level age assurance could be used to support wider efforts to reduce circumvention.
• Strengthening platform level detection of circumvention, including through more robust age assurance was also suggested by several respondents. These respondents felt responsibility for preventing restrictions should sit with technology companies and strengthened by guidance from Ofcom.
• Responses also proposed strengthening safety protections across services, including safety-by-design approaches, could reduce the impact of circumvention by ensuring protections apply regardless of how or where users access platforms, such as via a VPN.

Enforcement of mobile phone policies in schools

In this section, the consultation sought views on whether the Department for Education’s non-statutory guidance on ‘mobile phones in schools’ should be made statutory, what the impacts of this would be and if there are any circumstances where children should be permitted phone access in the school day.

It should be noted that during the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the Department for Education announced that the guidance on mobile phones in schools would be made statutory. Responses to questions in this consultation will be taken into account as the government implements this policy, and will be used to inform any necessary revisions to the guidance by September 2027.

Consultation response – question 41

1. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “To address some of the challenges schools face with mobile phones, the Department for Education’s (DfE) non-statutory guidance on ‘mobile phones in schools’ should be made statutory.”?

This would mean schools have a legal duty to follow the guidance, which explains to individual schools and trusts how to implement a policy that prohibits the use of mobile phones throughout the school day, they have good reasons not to. This includes during lessons, the time between lessons, breaktimes and lunchtime.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “To address some of the challenges schools face with mobile phones, the Department for Education’s (DfE) non-statutory guidance on ‘mobile phones in schools’ should be made statutory”?	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
Strongly agree	64%	13,741	82%	7,711
Somewhat agree	11%	2,445	7%	683
Neither agree nor disagree	5%	1,130	2%	214
Somewhat disagree	5%	1,040	2%	186
Strongly disagree	12%	2,655	6%	517
Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer	3%	599	1%	73
	answered	21,610		9,384
	skipped	2,924		677

Consultation response – question 42

1. What impacts would there be if this guidance was made statutory and why? For example, on disruption in lessons, bullying or harassment, parental views on mobile phone policies, staff, etc.

Summary of responses

Around half the respondents to this question considered that statutory guidance on mobile phones in schools would improve pupil behaviour and wellbeing by reducing instances of bullying, mitigating safeguarding risks, and minimising distractions, which could contribute to improvements in pupil’s mental health, social skills, behaviour and academic outcomes.

A small number of respondents said statutory guidance may negatively impact pupils, unless exemptions and flexibility are provided. For example, exemptions should be provided for pupils with medical or special educational needs and for pupils travelling to and from school to negate safety concerns. Very few respondents highlighted the guidance could have unintended negative outcomes, such as more a detrimental effect on pupil’s mental health and behaviour which may cause more disruption in schools. A few respondents were concerned that mobile phone restrictions would limit a pupil’s access to educational tools. Very few respondents suggested mobile phones with basic functions should be allowed in schools.

A small number of respondents were concerned that statutory guidance undermines parental autonomy, particularly the importance of parental contact and that parents should have a greater role in managing their child’s mobile phone use. A few respondents were concerned statutory guidance would undermine school autonomy and would prefer schools have flexibility and discretion in deciding mobile phone uses.

A few respondents stated that statutory guidance would enable consistent implementation across schools and would empower schools to fairly enforce the policy. Alternatively, a few respondents thought the guidance would be difficult to enforce or highlighted implementation or resource challenges. These respondents specifically raised concerns about the burden on school resources, staff workload, training and funding.

Very few respondents considered that statutory guidance would act as an effective signal to pupils and parents on broader concerns surrounding screen time and would help shape future behaviours. Similarly, very few respondents proposed an alternative approach focused on promoting education and the responsible use of mobile phones, with greater responsibility placed on parents and technology platforms.

Very few respondents considered that statutory guidance would be ineffective on the basis that as pupils may circumvent the policy, or that making guidance statutory would be unnecessary given existing policies. Similarly, very few respondents felt that the likely impact was unclear and called for additional evidence.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
Statutory guidance enhances pupil behaviour and wellbeing	Making guidance statutory is expected to reduce bullying, safeguarding risks, distractions, and overall screen time, thereby supporting improvements in pupil’s mental health, social skills, focus, behaviour, and academic outcomes.	Around half
Statutory guidance may negatively affect pupils unless exemptions and flexibility are provided	Statutory guidance may negatively affect pupils unless sufficient exemptions and flexibility are provided, particularly in relation to safety concerns such as bullying and travel to and from school, as well as for those who rely on devices for medical or SEND needs.	A small number
Statutory guidance undermines parental autonomy	Statutory guidance is viewed as government overreach that restricts parental decision-making, including parental ability to contact their children during the school day.	A small number
Statutory guidance improves school consistency	Statutory guidance would establish clear, consistent national rules meaning mobile phone policies are implemented and enforced fairly across settings.	Few
Statutory guidance will give schools the power to better enforce mobile phone policies	Statutory guidance will empower schools with greater authority to enforce mobile phone policies more consistently and with reduced risk of challenge from parents and pupils.	Few
Statutory guidance limits pupil access to educational tools	Statutory guidance may inadvertently limit pupil access to valuable educational tools by imposing broad restrictions on their use, potentially hindering digital literacy, independent learning, and engagement with modern educational resources.	Few
Statutory guidance creates enforcement challenges	Statutory guidance may place additional strain on teachers by increasing enforcement responsibilities, potentially diverting time and attention away from teaching towards managing compliance, such as confiscating mobile devices.	Few
Statutory guidance undermines school autonomy	Statutory guidance is viewed as government overreach that restricts school decision-making, as well as the ability to exercise professional judgement and adapt policies to their unique settings and contexts.	Few
Statutory guidance creates implementation and resource challenges	Introducing statutory guidance would impose significant administrative, financial, and practical burdens on schools, including increased workload, and the need for additional government support, funding, and training.	Very few
Alternative approaches promote education and responsible use	Advocates suggest teaching responsible phone use, digital citizenship, and compromise solutions, placing responsibility on parents and technology platforms rather than imposing a total statutory ban.	Very few
Statutory guidance may lead to unintended negative outcomes	Strict statutory bans could lead to boredom, resentment, displacement of problematic behaviours, and other negative outcomes such as greater use of mobile phones at home.	Very few
Statutory guidance is unnecessary	Many believe statutory guidance is redundant, as most schools already have effective policies and powers, and it is unlikely to result in significant change.	Very few
Statutory guidance is ineffective	Statutory guidance risks being ineffective as pupils are likely to find ways to use mobile phones regardless.	Very few
Statutory guidance serves as an effective signal to pupils and parents of broader concerns surrounding screen time	Statutory guidance serves as an effective signal to pupils and parents of broader concerns surrounding screen time and social media, reinforcing awareness of its potential impact on wellbeing, attention, and learning, and helping to shape attitudes and behaviours both within and beyond the school environment.	Very few
Alternative approaches such as brick phones should be allowed	Statutory guidance does not fully address social media issues, as it focuses on device use rather than online content and behaviours, and allowing non-internet-enabled phones may be a more targeted approach.	Very few
Statutory guidance impact is unclear or mixed	There is uncertainty or mixed views about the impact of statutory guidance, with some believing it is unknown due to insufficient evidence.	Very few
Statutory guidance has minor or specific impacts	Some responses mention minor or specific effects such as economic impacts on related businesses, privacy concerns, or impact on children’s data.	Very few
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question.	Very few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes.	Very few

Consultation response – question 43

1. Are there specific circumstances where you think children should be permitted to have or use a mobile phone during the school day? (Please select all that apply)

Are there specific circumstances where you think children should be permitted to have or use a mobile phone during the school day? (Please select all that apply)	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
Medical needs	52%	11,099	48%	4,523
Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) requirements	34%	7,246	26%	2,464
Individual safeguarding concerns	33%	7,106	28%	2,603
Caring responsibilities	32%	6,877	26%	2,405
Educational or learning purposes	19%	4,016	12%	1,143
Travel to and from school	53%	11,450	53%	4,987
Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer	2%	390	1%	86
None of the above, children should not be permitted to have or use a mobile phone during the school day at all	20%	4,328	26%	2,386
None of the above, children should always be permitted to have or use a mobile phone during the school day	8%	1,740	2%	215
Other (please specify):	10%	2,037	9%	792
	answered	21,496		9,344
	skipped	3,038		717

Summary of ‘other’ responses:

A few respondents provided additional context to their responses with free text. The themes below each represent a very few responses.

Respondents suggested that basic mobile phones with limited functionality should be permitted for essential communication and safety purposes.  As well as this, respondents noted that mobile phones should be allowed in specific circumstances, such as for emergency or safeguarding use in school, to support medical or SEND needs, or for travel to and from school.

Respondents also noted that children with caring responsibilities should have access to a mobile phone whilst in school and a few respondents said pupils should be allowed to use educational or assistive technology on mobile phones, under supervision. Additionally, respondents noted that mobile phones should be accessible during school breaks or outside of lessons. Respondents also suggested mobile phones should be accessible to pupils with wellbeing and social needs, such as those experiencing bulling, emotional distress or social isolation.

Respondents said mobile phones should not be permitted in schools under any circumstances or that there should be strict limitations and verification on mobile phone use. These respondents argued that schools can and should manage necessary or emergency communications.

Respondents stated that schools or parents should decide mobile phone use, not statutory guidance. On the other hand, respondents believed there should be unlimited access to mobile phones and that statutory guidance inhibits freedom of expression. Respondents also suggested that children should be taught responsible mobile phone use instead of restricting access.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
Restriction to basic phones for essential communication	Only basic non-smartphones with limited functionality for calls and texts should be permitted for essential communication, safety, or travel, while smartphones and internet-enabled devices are prohibited.	Very few
School and parental discretion and autonomy	Decisions about mobile phone use during the school day should be made by individual schools and parents, allowing flexibility and context-specific exceptions rather than a blanket government policy.	Very few
General prohibition of mobile phones	Children should not have or use mobile phones during the school day under any circumstances, as schools can manage communication and emergencies through alternative means and phones are seen as unnecessary distractions.	Very few
Emergency and safeguarding use only	Mobile phones should be allowed during the school day strictly for emergencies or safeguarding situations, typically under staff supervision and with clear restrictions.	Very few
Exemptions for medical and SEND needs	Children with medical conditions and/or special educational needs may use mobile phones during the school day only when strictly necessary, with appropriate safeguards and supervision.	Very few
Exemptions for travel to and from school	Children may have, but not use, a mobile phones during the school day to allow for travel to and from school.	Very few
Permitted use during breaks and non-lesson times	Children may use mobile phones only during breaks, lunch, or other non-instructional periods, but not during lessons or class activities.	Very few
Permitted use for educational or assistive purposes	Mobile phones may be allowed for specific educational activities or as assistive technology, provided access is controlled and limited to necessary functions under teacher supervision.	Very few
Strict limitation and verification of exceptions	Any exceptions for mobile phone use should be strictly limited to verified needs, managed through formal processes to prevent abuse and ensure responsible use.	Very few
Exemptions for pupils with caring responsibilities	Children with caring responsibilities may use mobile phones during the school day only when strictly necessary, with appropriate safeguards and supervision.	Very few
Unrestricted access and freedom of expression	Children should have unrestricted access to mobile phones during the school day to support freedom of expression and privacy.	Very few
Support for emotional wellbeing and social needs	Limited phone access may be appropriate for children experiencing emotional distress, bullying, or social isolation, allowing contact with family or support services under supervision.	Very few
Teaching responsible mobile phone use	Lessons should be provided to teach children how to use mobile phones responsibly and safely rather than imposing outright bans.	Very few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes	Very few
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question	Very few

Email responses on enforcement of mobile phone policies in schools

Summary of responses:

• There was broad support among respondents for placing DfE guidance on mobile phones in schools on a statutory footing. Opposition to placing guidance on a statutory footing was often informed by surveys and other engagement activities with children and young people, reflecting their concerns about autonomy and personal safety.
• Many respondents argued that a statutory approach would strengthen schools’ authority, support more consistent enforcement, and reduce disputes with parents. This was seen as beneficial as education stakeholders widely reported mobile phones contribute to classroom disruption, with bans associated with improved concentration, behaviour, and in some cases attainment.
• Respondents cautioned that a statutory ban alone would not address wider online harms and should form part of a broader strategy. Concerns included unintended consequences such as reduced pupil safety, workarounds, and potential impacts on vulnerable groups.
• Respondents emphasised that any statutory approach would require detailed guidance and careful design, including piloting and consultation with teachers, parents, and pupils. This included the need for clarity on exemptions, enforcement processes, and application across different school settings. Many respondents also highlighted that restrictions should be accompanied by wider measures, such as digital literacy education.
• There was broad support for exemptions for certain groups, such as pupils with medical conditions or caring responsibilities, but differing views on how these should be defined and applied, particularly in balancing flexibility with consistency.

Support for making DfE guidance on ‘mobile phones in schools’ statutory

• Most stakeholders supported the guidance being placed on a statutory footing, in line with responses to the ‘full consultation’ questionnaire. Some respondents did not express a view, noting that a decision had already been taken to make the guidance statutory.
• Most responses opposing a statutory ban (or any ban) stemmed from pupil surveys, focus groups or other engagement activities with children and young people.

Benefits of banning mobile phones in schools

Classroom learning and behaviour

• Education stakeholders widely report that mobile phones are a common source of classroom disruption and distraction, negatively affecting pupils’ ability to engage with learning. Stakeholders cited evidence from schools and teachers that mobile phone bans, including the use of lockable pouch systems, are associated with improvements in pupil concentration and engagement and some academic attainment gains.

Pupil wellbeing

• Education stakeholders, charities and research organisations highlighted how mobile phones in schools can negatively affect pupil wellbeing, through anxiety linked to notifications and social media, and by facilitating bullying, abuse and harassment (e.g. through non-consensual recording).
• Stakeholders suggested that school mobile phone bans can support pupil wellbeing by reducing online conflicts and social comparisons, limiting unsupervised mobile phone use and overall screentime, and encouraging more face-to-face social interaction and relationship-building between pupils during breaks. Mobile phone bans may also reduce opportunities for bullying and make harmful behaviours easier for teachers to identify and address.
• However, some stakeholders noted that the evidence on mental health and wellbeing benefits is limited and mixed, and that school mobile phone bans do not necessarily reduce mobile phone use outside of school hours, where engagement with harmful content may be more likely to occur.

Impact on teachers and school leaders

• Stakeholders, including a teaching union, reported that mobile phones increase behaviour issues and conflict with teachers, and create a time burden for managing and confiscating mobile phones.
• A youth organisation suggested that a mobile phone ban could help reinforce that schools should remain places of learning, enrichment and social development rather than constant digital engagement.

Parental /public support

• Online parent communities reported high levels of support among parents for banning mobile phones in schools, based on national surveys, while several MPs reported similarly high levels of support among adults in their constituencies.

Supporting consistent enforcement

• Some stakeholders noted that, although many schools already restrict mobile phone use, enforcement is inconsistent and challenging.
• Many stakeholders argued that a statutory mobile phone in schools ban would strengthen schools’ authority, support consistent enforcement, reduce complaints or challenges from parents and others, and create greater clarity and equity between schools.

Risks

Limits of school-based measures

• A broad range of stakeholders cautioned that a statutory ban would not address wider risks associate with device use. A school mobile phone ban should be only one element of a wider strategy.

Unintended consequences

• Several stakeholders raised concerns about unintended consequences.  This included a reduced sense of safety and security among pupils, risks around not having mobile phones during emergencies, encouraging secrecy among pupils and use of ‘workarounds’ e.g. burner phones.
• A medical stakeholder and charity highlighted the risk that exemptions to the mobile phone ban for pupils with medical conditions may unintentionally single them out, risking bullying and stigma, particularly if conditions are not visible or disclosed.

Mobile phones as learning tools

• An academic institution suggested that mobile phones should be used as tools to support learning, rather than removed entirely, especially given financial pressures around schools, and that safe, effective and purposeful integration of technology would better prepare pupils for the future and adult life.

Parental vs school responsibility

• Another academic institution highlighted how a school mobile phone ban shifts responsibility for young people’s device use away from families. Their research with school pupils found that most pupils thought parents should be the main decision-makers on social media use and not schools.

Lack of evidence

• A medical organisation highlighted the lack of evidence on the impacts of banning mobile phones, suggesting that studies offer mixed evidence on academic performance and often do not account for important variables such as children’s ages, overall smartphone usage and environmental factors outside of school.

Implementation considerations

Design and guidance

• Some civil society stakeholders stated that restrictions needed to be carefully designed and piloted, with meaningful engagement from teachers, parents, pupils, and groups representing young carers and disabled pupils.
• Civil society stakeholders also highlighted the need for detailed new guidance to accompany any statutory requirement, including how to handle exemptions, training, communication, enforcement and escalation. One respondent raised the need for clarity on how the ban would apply across different settings, such as alternative provision or residential schools.
• One teaching union recommended that different models be piloted and evaluated, to assess the impact on outcomes such as wellbeing, behaviour, learning environment, safeguarding and staff workload.
• A variety of stakeholders also emphasised the need for restrictions on phones to be accompanied by education about digital life and media literacy, including misinformation, algorithms, online safety risks and healthy digital habits.

Scope of restrictions

• Stakeholders had varied opinions on whether the ban should extend only to smartphones, or to all portable electronic personal devices such as smartwatches, iPads and laptops. One civil society stakeholder stated that when only smartphones are banned, pupils bring in other types of devices. Others stated that allowing ‘brick’ phones in schools would address concerns about pupils needing to communicate with parents.
• In terms of timing, one respondent stated that bans should relate only to lesson time, as breaktimes and lunchtimes are personal times and mobile phone access during breaks is important for safeguarding or to contact support services.
• One industry stakeholder shared a technological approach for limiting mobile phone use in schools, with a tool that parents can use to limit the functionality of smartphones during school hours.

Enforcement

• Some stakeholders reported that pouches or lockers are used already in schools to restrict mobile phone use but noted several challenges include inconsistent usage which can create burdensome systems, and the online purchase of devices that can unlock anti-mobile phone pouches.
• Other issues surrounding enforcement were mentioned by some stakeholders. A parent stated that legislation would need to give schools new powers to confiscate mobile phones, with clear guidance on the length of confiscation, whilst also protecting schools against civil proceedings for damage to confiscated mobile phones. One civil society stakeholder highlighted the need for clear guidance on how searching of pupils would be used.

Exemptions

• There was broad support for the need for exemptions to the guidance, if made statutory. Stakeholders agreed that groups identified in the consultation questions may require exemptions, including young carers, those with medical conditions and those with disabilities or special educational needs. Stakeholders agreed that exemptions may also be needed for communication, safeguarding, and travel to and from school.
• Respondents held differing views on how exemptions should be implemented. Some favoured flexible exemptions determined by professional judgement. Others argued they should be tightly limited and clearly defined in legislation. One disability rights stakeholder called for explicit statutory protection for phones used as communication aids, while a children’s charity argued that safeguarding exemptions must remain flexible to respond to unpredictable circumstances.
• There were also mixed views on the educational use of mobile phones in classrooms.  Some stakeholders stated that exemptions were needed for pupils to use mobile phones in lessons to access certain applications or to conduct research, and one respondent noted that schools have invested significant resources in digital education tools.  However, some argued access to mobile phones is not necessary to support learning, and this issue can be addressed through supervised use of school-provided devices or avoidance of screen time in lessons.
• One civil society stakeholder stated that schools should provide accessible communication channels for Deaf and disabled parents (e.g., text or BSL relay), so children are not relied upon to facilitate contact.

Supporting adults, including parents, carers and families

This section explores which areas or media or digital literacy children and parents most need support with. It also seeks views on where people currently get help and support on media literacy and what makes these places particularly helpful. The consultation sought views on how the government could better support children and young people to stay safe online, outside of school, and how children with additional needs could be supported.

Consultation response – question 44

1. Which areas of media or digital literacy do children and families most need additional help with?  (Please select all that apply)

Which areas of media or digital literacy do children and families most need additional help with?  (Please select all that apply)	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
Managing screen time and online habits	79%	16,545	85%	7,843
Spotting adverts, sponsored posts or AI generated content	76%	15,917	75%	6,899
Keeping personal information private	84%	17,481	84%	7,775
Online behaviour and experiences (bullying, respect, comparison or peer pressure)	82%	17,095	87%	8,031
Checking if information is true	82%	17,002	81%	7,545
Understanding how social media works (for example, ‘likes’ or algorithms)	71%	14,712	75%	6,953
Staying safe online (including how to have conversations about online safety)	82%	17,067	85%	7,831
Reporting harmful or upsetting content	75%	15,651	80%	7,408
Knowing which apps or sites are right for their age	70%	14,474	75%	6,922
Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer	1%	297	1%	77
None of the above	3%	549	2%	218
Other (please specify):	7%	1,326	4%	402
	answered	20855		9,274
	skipped	3679		787

Summary of ‘other’ responses

A few respondents provided additional context to their responses with free text. The themes below each represent a very few responses.

Respondents emphasised the importance of comprehensive and structured media literacy education across schools and families. They also highlighted the role of parents, noting that greater support, tools and guidance are needed to help them manage children’s digital lives.

Responses also expressed concerns about government intervention in this space, favouring parental responsibility and education over regulation or state intervention. Respondents focused on digital risks and mental health impacts, including exposure to harmful content, addictive platform features and online exploitation. Others emphasised the importance of supporting children to critically engage with online content, including identifying misinformation and understanding algorithmic influence.

A very few highlighted privacy and data protection, including managing digital footprints, avoiding scams and exercising data rights. Respondents called for age-appropriate digital restrictions, and highlighted the responsibility of technology companies to ensure user safety through better content moderation and safer product design.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
Need for comprehensive media and digital literacy education	Children and families require broad, structured, and ongoing support across all areas of media and digital literacy, including foundational digital skills, AI literacy, critical thinking, online safety, wellbeing, and accessible resources delivered both in schools and at home.	Very few
Parental education and responsibility	Parents and carers have responsibility for helping to keep their child safe online and need education, practical tools, and guidance to effectively supervise, support, and manage their children’s digital lives, including the use of parental controls, device management and digital parenting skills.	Very few
Opposition to government intervention in online safety and digital literacy	Opposition to government involvement in online safety, media and digital literacy, with preference for parental responsibility, individual choice, and education over regulation or state intervention.	Very few
Engaging critically with the online information environment	Support is needed to help children develop critical thinking skills so they can identify misleading or manipulative content, recognise echo chambers and algorithmic influence, and understand issues such as conspiracy theories, political bias and propaganda. It should also support them to engage respectfully online and make informed decisions about their online behaviour.	Very few
Privacy and data protection are vital	Children and families require significant support to protect personal information (including given new age verification laws), understand privacy rights, manage digital footprints, avoid scams and exploitation, and safeguard data from misuse or harmful content, including awareness of commercial models and data rights.	Very few
Addressing digital risks and supporting mental health	Children and families need help understanding and managing the potential psychological, emotional, and developmental impacts of digital media use, including around screen time, addictive features and social comparison, as well as support to recognise more extreme risks such as abuse, grooming and sexual exploitation.	Very few
Age-appropriate digital restrictions are needed	Media and digital literacy support for children is not sufficient. Age restrictions, minimum ages for access, and consideration of neurological readiness, bans and/or device limitations are needed.	Very few
Technology companies must ensure user safety	Digital platforms and technology providers should take greater responsibility for user safety, content moderation, and designing safer products and environments, for example, reducing addictiveness and managing harmful or inappropriate content accessible to children online.	Very few
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question	Very few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes	Very few

Consultation response – question 45

1. If you are responding as a private individual, where do you go for help with online safety or media literacy skills? By online safety or media literacy skills, we mean things like staying safe online, understanding digital content and using the internet confidently and responsibly. (Please select all that apply)

If you are responding as a private individual, where do you go for help with online safety or media literacy skills? By online safety or media literacy skills, we mean things like staying safe online, understanding digital content and using the internet confidently and responsibly. (Please select all that apply)	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
Schools or childcare settings	33%	6,536	40%	3,676
Community or youth spaces (for example libraries, youth clubs or local charities)	17%	3,384	14%	1,300
Parent or carer groups or networks	25%	5,036	32%	2,922
Public services (such as family hubs, GP surgeries or community centres)	18%	3,643	18%	1,620
Faith or cultural groups (including places of worship)	8%	1,520	8%	715
Non-governmental online sources (such as websites, platforms or online communities)	36%	7,188	34%	3,111
Government websites	32%	6,321	34%	3,081
Tools and resources on online platforms	37%	7,239	35%	3,161
Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer	5%	1,043	5%	410
None of the above/I haven’t used any of these to find help	21%	4,107	17%	1,585
Other (please specify):	9%	1,812	8%	735
	answered	19,809		9,120
	skipped	4,725		941

Summary of ‘other’ responses

A few respondents provided additional context to their responses with free text. The themes below each represent a very few responses.

Across the free text responses, respondents reported relying on their own knowledge, experience and independent research rather than seeking external support. Respondents sought advice from friends, family and other parents, others highlighted formal education, training or workplace learning as a key source. Several described using online sources such as search engines, forums and AI tools, alongside traditional media including books, libraries and news outlets. Respondents also expressed scepticism about available support or government involvement, while others referenced specialist organisations and charities, and parental guidance and responsibility, as important sources of support. A very few highlighted lack of awareness or uncertainty about where to seek help, drew on expert or academic advice, or consulted technology providers and retailers.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Report Share
Relying on own personal knowledge and experience, alongside self-directed learning	Individuals often depend on their own knowledge, critical thinking, and independent research rather than seeking external support for online safety and media literacy.	Very few
Seeking guidance from friends, family and other parents	Many people turn to family, friends, peers, other parents and social networks for advice and support regarding online safety and media literacy, valuing the expertise of tech-savvy contacts.	Very few
Formal education, training or work experience	Schools, universities, teachers, workplace experience and training are frequently cited as sources for learning about online safety and media literacy, including educational presentations by the council or the police. Limitations in expertise or up-to-date information are noted in some cases.	Very few
Searching the internet and using AI tools and online forums	Online resources such as search engines, tutorials, forums, AI tools, and social media platforms are commonly used to find information and guidance on online safety and media literacy.	Very few
Relying on books, libraries, and traditional media such as TV and radio	Books, libraries, newspapers, documentaries, podcasts, and reputable news sources are consulted for learning about online safety and media literacy skills.	Very few
Criticism of available support and government involvement	There is scepticism and distrust around government support and involvement, criticism of the adequacy of available support, and advocacy for greater parental responsibility.	Very few
Turning to specialist organisations and charities	Specialist organisations, national charities, advocacy groups, and official resources like the Smartphone Free Childhood website, NSPCC, Internet Matters, CEOP and the National Cyber Security Centre are important sources of support for online safety and media literacy.	Very few
Parental guidance and responsibility for online safety	Parents and trusted adults are seen as primary sources of online safety education for children, with emphasis on support/education for parents, parental responsibility and strategies such as monitoring or restricting technology use.	Very few
Lack of awareness or uncertainty about support	Uncertainty, lack of awareness, or absence of accessible and trustworthy resources is noted regarding where to seek help with online safety or media literacy skills. Some respondents indicate a lack of motivation to seek/interest in support.	Very few
Seeking expert and academic advice	Civil liberties organisations, privacy experts, scientific papers, and academic resources are used to inform online safety and media literacy practices.	Very few
Consulting technology providers and retailers	Technology providers, official company guidelines, user manuals, and technology retailers are sought for support with online safety and media literacy.	Very few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes	Very few
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question	Very few

What made these places helpful? Please share any programmes, resources or activities that you have found useful

A small number of respondents emphasised the value of trusted, impartial resources provided by expert organisations, including charities and official bodies, which were seen as reliable and evidence-based sources of guidance. A similar proportion highlighted the importance of information that is clear, accessible, up-to-date and tailored to different age groups. A small number also pointed to the value of community and peer support networks, and a similar proportion to the importance of school-based online safety education. A small number of respondents relied on self-education and personal experience, including independent research and online resources, and a similar proportion emphasised the importance of raising awareness of online risks and cybersecurity.

A few respondents highlighted the importance of developing media literacy and critical thinking skills, while a similar proportion raised concerns about the availability and effectiveness of existing support, including gaps in provision, accessibility challenges and lack of awareness. A few also noted the role of parental controls and technical tools in supporting online safety.

A very few respondents expressed limited use or scepticism towards available resources, while a similar proportion referenced reliance on faith groups, libraries, or local and community-based provision. A very few also highlighted the promotion of offline activities and wider wellbeing support, including mental health resources.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
Value of trusted, impartial resources	Trusted, non-commercial and evidence-based resources provided by expert organisations such as Internet Matters, Parent Zone, Childnet, NSPCC, UK Safer Internet Centre and Smartphone Free Childhood are considered essential for promoting online safety and media literacy.	A small number
Need for accessible, clear, up-to-date and age-appropriate information	Resources should be quick and easy to access, user-friendly, clearly written, regularly updated, and tailored to different age groups or needs, offering centralised, practical and actionable advice that reflects people’s real-life experiences. In person or offline support also welcomed.	A small number
Value of community and peer support networks	Support from parents, peers, community groups, and online forums is highly valued for providing practical advice, emotional support, and learning about online safety.	A small number
Importance of school-based online safety education	Formal education in schools, including curriculum integration and teacher-led workshops, is viewed as an effective way to deliver consistent and age-appropriate online safety and digital literacy. Training for teachers is also important to ensure they can effectively support pupils and parents.	A small number
Reliance on self-education and personal experience	Individuals often rely on self-education, personal experience, and independent research, sometimes preferring these over formal resources for learning about online safety. This includes watching educational videos, for example, on YouTube.	A small number
Awareness of online risks and cybersecurity	Resources and initiatives that alert users to evolving online dangers, including scams and misinformation, and raise awareness of the importance of protecting personal data and cybersecurity are necessary and effective.	A small number
Media literacy and critical thinking skills	Developing media literacy, critical thinking, research skills and fact-checking skills is considered vital for navigating misinformation and online risks. This includes understanding how algorithms work.	Few
Scepticism about available resources, including lack of resources or ineffectiveness	Cost, inaccessibility, information overload, lack of staff training, outdated content, and gaps in resource quality or coverage reduce the effectiveness of available support.	Few
Empowerment through parental controls and technical tools	Parental controls, device management tools, privacy settings, and clear technical guidance empower parents to manage children’s online safety effectively.	Few
Limited use or scepticism toward resources	Some individuals report not using or needing resources, expressing uncertainty, scepticism, or perceived irrelevance of available support.	Very few
Importance of faith groups, libraries, and local or community-based support	Religious or faith groups, libraries, community centres and other local organisations play a key role in providing online safety support.	Very few
Promotion of offline activities and wellbeing	Encouraging offline activities and providing mental health resources are seen as beneficial for children’s overall wellbeing in the digital age.	Very few
Benefits of internet access for learning and socialization	Internet access is recognised as beneficial for learning new skills and making friends, especially for those who feel isolated.	Very few
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question	Very few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes	Very few

Consultation response – question 46

1. Where, if anywhere, would you like to see more support available in the future? This could include places you already use but don’t offer support and you would like them to, or places that could offer more support with help from government or others. (Please select all that apply)

Where, if anywhere, would you like to see more support available in the future? This could include places you already use but don’t offer support and you would like them to, or places that could offer more support with help from government or others. (Please select all that apply)	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
Schools or childcare settings	76%	15,404	78%	7,071
Community or youth spaces (for example libraries, youth clubs or local charities)	58%	11,808	53%	4,774
Parent or carer groups or networks	55%	11,073	49%	4,468
Public services (such as family hubs, GP surgeries or community centres)	58%	11,826	57%	5,310
Faith or cultural groups	28%	5,653	26%	2,319
Non-governmental online sources (such as websites, platforms or online communities)	45%	9,119	43%	3,916
Government websites	58%	11,742	61%	5,558
Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer	5%	965	4%	330
None of the above/I would not use these to find help	5%	1,000	4%	372
Other (please specify):	5%	1,012	5%	408
	answered	20,274		9,064
	skipped	4,260		997

Summary of ‘other’ responses
A very few respondents provided additional context to their responses with free text. The themes below each represent a very few responses.

Free text responses focused on a need for expanded and more visible provision. Respondents called for greater support for parents and families, alongside more universally accessible and inclusive support across multiple channels. Responses also highlighted the need for more tailored support for vulnerable or specialist groups. A very few called for specific measures such as bans or restrictions for children under 16.

Several respondents called for greater government or legislative action, expanded community and youth provision, centralised and independent support resources, or improved technology and safety mechanisms. Other responses highlighted the need for stronger support in education settings, including improved resources and teacher training, and called for greater responsibility from technology companies. Several emphasised the importance of public awareness campaigns and improved media literacy education. Finally, a proportion expressed opposition to additional or government-led support.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
Enhanced support for parents and families	There is advocacy for more accessible guidance, education, practical tools, and empowerment for parents and families to support children’s online safety and development, emphasizing parental responsibility and challenges.	Very few
Universal and accessible support provision	There is strong advocacy for support to be universally available, highly visible, and accessible to all people across multiple channels and venues, ensuring inclusivity and expert provision.	Very few
Increased support in education settings	There is strong advocacy for enhanced resources, digital literacy integration, staff training, and online safety curricula within schools to better equip students, though concerns exist about overburdening educational institutions.	Very few
Greater responsibility from technology companies	There is strong support for increased accountability and proactive measures from technology companies, social media platforms, ISPs, and service providers to ensure user safety and provide protective information.	Very few
Enhanced public awareness and media campaigns	There is support for national campaigns, media literacy initiatives, and balanced information on online harms and benefits delivered through media and public broadcasts.	Very few
Opposition to additional or government support	There is scepticism about the need for more support, opposition to government involvement, or belief that current support is sufficient, with preference for minimal intervention or alternative approaches such as bans.	Very few
Increased government and legislative action	There is support for stronger government leadership, regulation, and legislation to protect users online, provide official resources, and ensure systematic support, though some express scepticism about government overreach.	Very few
Expanded community and youth support venues	Increased support in community settings such as youth clubs, libraries, and social spaces is seen as essential for reaching young people and the wider public, including incorporating youth perspectives.	Very few
Centralised, independent, and impartial support resources	There is support for creating centralised, trustworthy, and independent resources, such as ‘one stop shop’ websites and local hubs, free from government or industry bias, to provide reliable information.	Very few
Improved technology and safety mechanisms	There is a demand for better technology solutions, mandatory device settings, effective reporting and takedown systems, and tools to combat misinformation and harmful content online.	Very few
Tailored support for vulnerable and specialist groups	There is a clear call for more targeted support for vulnerable populations, including children, the elderly, SEND, neurodiverse individuals, and victims of online harms, as well as specialist and advocacy organisations. There is a call for more resources and support for mental health and wellbeing services, particularly in relation to online harms, digital wellbeing, and youth mental health.	Very few
Bans and restrictions for children under 16	There is support for prohibiting access to smartphones and social media for children under 16 as a protective measure for their wellbeing.	Very few
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question	Very few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes including workplaces.	Very few

Consultation response – question 47

1. Outside of schools, how could the UK government better support children and young people to stay safe and feel supported online? (Please select all that apply)

Outside of schools, how could the UK government better support children and young people to stay safe and feel supported online? (Please select all that apply)	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
By providing clear guidance that children can use on their own	69%	14,049	68%	6,226
By supporting parents and carers to support children online	79%	16,254	81%	7,346
By working with online platforms and services that children already use	69%	14,141	78%	7,073
By supporting youth organisations and community groups to help children online	58%	11,902	56%	5,095
By making help or advice easy to access when something goes wrong online	69%	14,028	66%	6,045
By involving children and young people in designing support	61%	12,432	60%	5,426
Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer	2%	451	2%	153
None of the above	5%	1,072	5%	437
	answered	20,486		9,111
	skipped	4,048		950

Consultation response – question 48

1. What types of support would help children with additional needs stay safe online and build digital skills? By ‘additional needs’, we mean children who may need extra support for a range of reasons (such as learning, communication, health or access needs). (Please select all that apply)

What types of support would help children with additional needs stay safe online and build digital skills? By ‘additional needs’, we mean children who may need extra support for a range of reasons (such as learning, communication, health or access needs). (Please select all that apply)	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
Clear, simple information using plain language	76%	15,301	75%	6,667
Content adapted for different ages, abilities or needs	68%	13,636	69%	6,107
Visual, audio or interactive formats	60%	11,973	58%	5,139
Support delivered through trusted local or community services	54%	10,763	52%	4,577
Flexible or on‑demand support that can be accessed when needed	53%	10,731	50%	4,429
Support that helps parents or carers guide children online	69%	13,848	67%	5,933
Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer	8%	1,572	10%	848
None of the above	3%	614	3%	241
Other (please specify):	6%	1,170	5%	429
	answered	20,087		8,875
	skipped	4,447		1,186

Summary of ‘other’ responses

A few respondents provided additional context to their responses with free text. The themes below each represent a very few responses.

Respondents called for greater parental support and education. Other responses advocated for restrictions and supervised online access. Several respondents expressed scepticism or opposition to government or platform intervention, while a similar proportion called for greater regulation and accountability of technology companies.
Other respondents emphasised the need for individualised and co-designed support. There were also calls for comprehensive, tailored and accessible digital education. A very few highlighted the role of accessible technology and inclusive platforms. Other indicated the importance of universal support measures for all children with additional needs, accessible online support and centralised trusted guidance, and clear, simple, accessible information provision. A very few responses suggested community, peer or charitable support as alternatives, the importance of critical thinking, media literacy and wellbeing education, safe reporting mechanisms and reliable content, promotion of offline skill development, public awareness and media campaigns, and emotional regulation and addiction support.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
Parental support and education	Empowering and educating parents and carers with resources, guidance, and effective controls is essential for helping children with additional needs stay safe online and build digital skills, with emphasis on parental responsibility and involvement.	Very few
Restrictions and supervised online access	Strict age limits, bans on social media and certain apps, supervised and gradual online access, and restricted device use are advocated to enhance the safety of children with additional needs online.	Very few
Scepticism and opposition to government or platform intervention	There is scepticism about the effectiveness of current or proposed supports, with opposition to increased government or platform involvement and preference for parental or community-led solutions.	Very few
Regulation and accountability of technology companies	Technology companies and online platforms should be held accountable through regulation, legal enforcement, and mandatory safety standards to ensure safer and more accessible digital environments for children with additional needs.	Very few
Individualised and co-designed support	Support for children with additional needs should be flexible, tailored to diverse needs and developmental stages, co-designed with input from children, parents, and stakeholders, and provided in accessible formats including specialist environments and one-to-one guidance.	Very few
Comprehensive, tailored, and accessible digital education	Structured, repeated, and accessible digital skills and online safety education, integrated into the school curriculum and delivered through practical, engaging, and expert-led approaches, is essential for children with additional needs.	Very few
Accessible technology and inclusive platforms	Children with additional needs should have access to specialised technology, assistive tools, adapted content, accessible communication formats, and inclusive online platforms with built-in safety features and accessibility standards.	Very few
Universal support measures for all children with additional needs	General or universal support measures are necessary to benefit all children with additional needs, regardless of their specific circumstances.	Very few
Importance of accessible online support and centralised trusted guidance	Accessible online support services, guidance from trusted adults, and involvement of role models are crucial for helping children with additional needs seek help and learn digital skills safely, including confidential and non-judgemental support. A central government-run website or dedicated app providing comprehensive, trusted, and up-to-date information and resources is proposed to support children and parents.	Very few
Clear, simple, and accessible information provision	Online safety and digital skills information must be provided in clear, simple, and accessible formats tailored for children with additional needs and their parents.	Very few
Community, peer, and charitable support as alternatives	Charities, community groups, peer mentoring, and trusted local services are effective alternatives or complements to government or platform-led interventions for supporting children with additional needs online.	Very few
Critical thinking, media literacy, and wellbeing education	Education should include critical thinking, media literacy, emotional regulation, and digital wellbeing to empower children with additional needs to navigate online risks and make informed choices.	Very few
Supporting safe reporting and access to reliable content	Children with additional needs should be enabled to communicate about online experiences and have access to safe, easy reporting mechanisms for harms or concerns. Alongside access to reliable online content, supported by fact checking and minimum information standards to prevent misinformation.	Very few
Promotion of offline skill development	Encouraging participation in offline activities and the development of non-digital skills is important for the safety and holistic development of children, particularly those with additional needs. This includes supporting families to establish healthy screen time limits and consistent role modelling by parents and carers.	Very few
Public awareness and media campaigns for online safety	Long-term public safety campaigns, celebrity-led announcements, and use of children’s media are recommended to promote online safety and digital skills for children with additional needs.	Very few
Need for emotional regulation and addiction support	Providing targeted tools and support for emotional regulation and addressing device or app addiction is essential for the wellbeing of children with additional needs online.	Very few
Unclear definition of ‘additional needs’	The lack of a clear and consistent definition for ‘additional needs’ creates challenges in designing and delivering effective support for children online.	Very few
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question	Very few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes	Very few

Email responses on supporting adults, including parents, carers and families

Summary of responses

Media literacy as a core enabler of online safety

• Media literacy emerged as a consistent theme in response to questions across multiple chapters of the consultation. Across industry, civil society and academic stakeholders, there was strong agreement that media and digital literacy is a key enabler of children’s safe and positive online engagement.

• Many respondents described media literacy as a durable, long-term intervention that helps avoid a ‘cliff edge’, where young people reach the minimum user age and are suddenly exposed to the online world without the skills, resilience or healthy habits to navigate it.

• Children’s safety charities and frontline professional bodies emphasised that media literacy is not a substitute for platform safety, but an essential component of it. They warned against framing literacy as an alternative to regulation, particularly where this would mean that the burden of safety would sit with children and parents.

Broadening the scope of media literacy

• Industry, civil society, health and academic respondents argued that media literacy must extend beyond basic online safety or guidance on screen time to reflect the realities of children’s online lives.

• There was broad agreement across industry and civil society that AI and algorithmic literacy should now be core components of media literacy, alongside skills to recognise commercial intent and advertising, understand platform design, challenge manipulative or deceptive design, protect personal information and exercise data rights.

Areas of additional support

• Children’s safety charities, civil society and public sector respondents called for stronger support around misinformation, AI-generated content and scams. A small number of children’s safety charities and women’s-sector organisations also called for more support around gendered harms, sexual image sharing, pornography and consent, noting that children need to understand harmful norms and how online content shapes expectations about relationships and behaviour.

• Academic and health respondents stressed the importance of children understanding the emotional, behavioural, motivational and relational dimensions of digital engagement. This included issues such as how children present themselves online, social comparison, online relationships and digital wellbeing.

Strengthening curriculum delivery and teacher training

• There was consensus across civil society, youth sector, health, industry and academic respondents that schools should play a central role in delivering media and digital literacy education. Stakeholders highlighted the value of starting early and ensuring provision keeps pace with the changing digital landscape, particularly around AI, platform and algorithmic literacy.

• Civil society, youth sector and academic respondents argued that current curriculum provision is inconsistent across schools and does not yet fully reflect the realities of children’s online lives. These responses stressed the importance of co-designing guidance with children and young people themselves to ensure that education and policy are grounded in lived experience.

• Some teachers and youth sector respondents highlighted digital citizenship as a distinct strand focused on being responsible and respectful online, looking out for others, reporting harm, and developing digital self-care.

• Teaching representatives, civil society and academic respondents stressed that teachers need significantly more training, time and resources through initial teacher training and ongoing CPD, alongside clearer national guidance and interim support ahead of curriculum reforms.

• Civil society, academic respondents and young people’s representative bodies stressed the importance of co-designing media literacy interventions with children and young people, ensuring education and policy are grounded in lived experience. Some industry respondents argued that this collaboration must extend across schools, parents, charities, healthcare providers, regulators and platforms, including through proven sector programmes.

Children with additional needs

• Civil society, health, teachers and regulators consistently called for tailored, accessible and inclusive support for children with additional needs.

• Many respondents emphasised that support must be co-designed with children with additional needs and their families. Input should come from specialist organisations, and guidance must apply to children with SEND, those in care, neurodivergent children, children with health conditions, LGBTQ+ young people, and those outside mainstream education.

• Children’s safety charities and civil society identified specific risks for children with additional needs around AI chatbots, manipulative content, trusting people online, and ableism.

• Some civil society respondents and individuals with lived experience proposed stronger statutory infrastructure, including a defined ‘additional needs’ account category across major platforms, guardian-linked controls, and funded plain English and Easy Read digital safety education.

Youth workers and trusted intermediaries

• Youth sector, civil society, academics and industry noted the role of youth workers, libraries and community organisations as trusted sources of support for children and families outside the school setting. Sustained investment in youth workers, libraries and community organisations was seen as critical for reaching children and families less engaged with formal education.

• Civil society and academic respondents raised concern around provision of youth centres and other ‘third spaces’ where children and young people can build digital and media literacy skills outside school and the home.

• Youth sector respondents emphasised that youth workers are vital to delivering effective media literacy support, and called for specific training on VPNs, age assurance, circumvention of age limits, AI risks and misinformation, to ensure practitioners are equipped to recognise how young people may misuse such tools and to mitigate the risks to which they may be exposed.

• Some civil society respondents added that social workers and health workers are an underused workforce for media and digital literacy, and called for digital safeguarding training to be embedded in their initial training and CPD.

Supporting parents and carers

• Civil society, regulators, industry, health and public sector respondents consistently identified parents and carers as central to children’s online safety. Stakeholders stressed the importance of media and digital literacy support to help them model healthier online behaviours and recognise when to intervene where there is a risk of harm.

• However, responses from parent-facing organisations, civil society respondents and regulators indicated that parents felt unprepared and overwhelmed by the complexity of children’s online lives lacking confidence in existing safety tools, unsure where to turn for trusted advice, and navigating a fragmented landscape of platforms, settings and guidance.

• Civil society and some industry respondents emphasised that parental controls alone are insufficient, and must sit alongside practical, age-appropriate guidance covering the areas where parents most want support. This includes guidance on screen time, misinformation, AI-generated content, online behaviour, bullying, privacy and scams.

• Civil society and industry respondents noted that support must meet parents where they are, through accessible formats and clear guidance at key moments. Respondents emphasised that parents are more likely to engage when guidance comes through trusted community intermediaries, schools, charities, and parenting organisations. These respondents also highlighted the value of improving signposting to existing high-quality resources from civil society and trusted sector programmes and the importance of public awareness campaigns to reach parents and families through accessible, trusted channels.

• Regulators, civil society and academic respondents stressed that parents should not be expected to compensate for systemic design risks. Platforms must do more to support families through clearer information, safer-by-default settings and improved on-platform guidance.

Government leadership, strategy and funding

• Civil society and expert respondents argued that government must take a clearer, more strategic and better-funded role on media literacy. Stakeholders welcomed the publication of the Media Literacy Action Plan as an important basis to build on, with some offering to support its implementation. However, some children’s safety charities and civil society respondents argued that the Action Plan currently lacks ownership at senior levels of government, has limited new funding, no success metrics, and unclear coordination across departments and regulators. Some children’s safety charities and individuals with lived experience proposed sustainable funding mechanisms, including a polluter-pays approach via the Online Safety Act or a levy on tech companies.

• Civil society and academic respondents called for a cross-cutting, well-resourced strategy with defined roles for DSIT, DfE, Ofcom, the ICO, the Electoral Commission and other relevant bodies, supported by robust monitoring, evaluation and outcomes-based accountability.

• Some industry, civil society and public sector respondents, expressed support for the Kids Online Safety Hub and accompanying awareness campaign, as trusted national infrastructure for parents, schools and practitioners.

Role of platforms: voluntary versus binding duties

• Industry respondents acknowledged that platforms must contribute to children’s media and digital literacy, but there were differences of views on how prescriptive that contribution should be. Many industry stakeholders pointed to their existing media literacy programmes, partnerships and on-platform tools, and preferred a voluntary, collaborative model in which government, Ofcom and industry innovate, share best practice and develop interventions tailored to each service. Some industry stakeholders cautioned against prescriptive expectations arguing that one-size-fits-all approaches do not reflect the diversity of platforms.

• Some civil society and expert organisations, most notably children’s safety charities, argued that voluntary approaches were unlikely to deliver consistent or meaningful change and called for legally binding ‘media literacy by design’ duties on platforms, alongside stronger accountability for unsafe design and harmful features.

Promoting access to high quality content

This section explored views on who respondents would trust to determine what ‘high quality content’ is for children, aged 13- 16. It also sought views on what further action should be prioritised to support positive online spaces for young people, and what should be considered if further action is taken on this issue.

Consultation response – question 49

1. Who would you trust to determine what is meant by ‘high quality online content’ for children 13-16? (Please select all that apply)

Who would you trust to determine what is meant by ‘high quality online content’ for children 13-16? (Please select all that apply)	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
Government	38%	7,600	46%	4,260
Online platform trust and safety teams	22%	4,476	22%	2,067
Parents, carers or trusted adults	47%	9,688	48%	4,466
Children	14%	2,986	9%	793
Developmental experts	55%	11,453	58%	5,362
Educators	64%	13,293	67%	6,168
Youth workers	33%	6,877	27%	2,505
Child advocacy charities and organisations	50%	10,400	53%	4,845
Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer	3%	519	2%	174
None of the above	6%	1,134	4%	329
Other (please specify):	7%	1,381	5%	500
	answered	20,703		9,224
	skipped	3831		837

Summary of ‘other’ responses

A few respondents provided additional context to their responses with free text. The themes below each represent a very few responses.

Respondents expressed a scepticism of a variety of arbiters of ‘high quality online content’, including the government, and tech companies. However, others supported the role of established media and regulators, psychologists and medical professionals, older children and young adults, academics and independent researchers, experts from IT, cyber or digital fields, as well as industry and content creators, in determining ‘high quality online content’, potentially in collaborative panels. Others suggested that media and digital literacy skills would help children, parents and teachers identify this content.

Some responses pointed out the difficulty of creating universal content standards. Others raised concerned about the value of educational technology, while others advocated for restricting children’s online access or use of smartphones.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
Distrust of government	There is widespread scepticism toward government defining high quality online content for children, with concerns about censorship, politics and conflicts of interest.	Very few
Support for collaborative approach from wide range of stakeholders to define high quality content	There is strong support for independent, expert-led panels from a wide range of fields to collaboratively determine high quality online content including from regulators, academia, charities, educators and parents. Provided they are impartial, evidence-based, and free from conflicts of interest.	Very few
Difficulty of universal content standards as it is subjective	The inherent subjectivity and diversity of individual needs make universally defining ‘high quality’ online content for children inadequate or impossible.	Very few
Trust in established media and regulators	Established institutions such as public service broadcaster (BBC), independent regulators (Ofcom), and classification boards (BBFC) are trusted to set standards for high quality online content for children due to their accountability and educational focus.	Very few
Support for psychologists and medical professionals to define high quality content	There is strong support for the experts to determine content to be psychologists or from the medical or healthcare profession or safeguarding	Very few
Support for older children and young adults to assist in defining high quality content	There is a belief that older children and young adults should have a meaningful say or primary responsibility in defining high quality online content for their age group, ensuring relevance and authenticity. Particularly as they grew up with the internet and social media.	Very few
Distrust of tech companies	There is widespread scepticism toward tech companies and platforms in defining high quality online content for children, with concerns about commercial conflicts of interest.	Very few
Support for experts from academia or independent researchers to define high quality content	There is strong support for the experts to determine content to be from academia or independent research	Very few
Preference for restricting children’s online access or use of smartphone	Advocates for children to have no or very limited online content, supporting smartphone-free childhoods or complete restriction from the internet	Very few
Industry and content creator involvement	There is support for industry representatives, content creators, and publishers to help define high quality online content, valuing their practical experience and digital expertise.	Very few
Digital literacy and media literacy	Improving digital literacy and media literacy to help children, parents, teachers etc improve identifying what is high quality content and the best means of finding it	Very few
Support for experts from IT, cyber or digital fields to define high quality content	There is strong support for the experts to determine content to be from IT, digital or cyber	Very few
Scepticism toward educational technology	Concerns exist about the suitability and actual benefit of educational technology tools and ed-tech providers for children.	Very few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes	Very few
No Reason Given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question	Very few

Consultation response – question 50

1. What further action should be prioritised to support positive online spaces for young people? (Please select all that apply)

What further action should be prioritised to support positive online spaces for young people? (Please select all that apply)	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
Develop best practice principles for industry	67%	13,569	74%	6,711
Develop guidance for parents and carers	75%	15,133	74%	6,704
Develop guidance for children	66%	13,277	65%	5,893
Reviewing international approaches	51%	10,304	58%	5,262
Industry voluntarily promoting high quality content for children	39%	7,828	40%	3,638
Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer	3%	650	3%	236
None of the above	4%	885	4%	326
Other (please specify):	9%	1,875	9%	789
	answered	20,282		9,026
	skipped	4,252		1,035

Summary of ‘other’ responses

A few respondents provided additional context to their responses with free text. The themes below each represent a very few responses.

Respondents were most likely to advocate for regulation and safety-by-design of online environments, as well as age restrictions, promotion of positive and child-friendly online spaces, and increased education, digital and media literacy. A very few responses supported empowering parents and were opposed to interventions. Several responses recommended collaboration with experts and international partners in further policy development. Others made a case for support for offline alternatives and socialisation in lieu of screen time.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
Regulation and design for safer online environments	Advocacy for robust regulation, improved platform design, and restrictions on harmful or addictive features to create safer online spaces for young people. This includes mandatory legal enforcement, use of fines, regulation of harmful content, improved moderation, and limits on addictive design elements.	Very few
Age restrictions and limiting online access for children	Support for strict age restrictions, robust age verification, and in some cases, banning or severely restricting online access for children to protect them from harm.	Very few
Parental empowerment and opposition to intervention	Emphasis on empowering parents through education and controls, with some expressing scepticism or opposition to government intervention and prioritizing parental responsibility.	Very few
Promotion of positive and child-friendly online spaces	Support for creating, incentivising, and promoting positive, inclusive, and child-specific online spaces and alternatives for young people, including dedicated platforms and support for diverse communities. This could be achieved by regulating or incentivising industry to promote high quality content.	Very few
Education, digital and media literacy	Advocacy for comprehensive digital literacy, media literacy and online safety education for young people and parents, alongside efforts to establish positive social norms and address cyberbullying.	Very few
Collaboration with experts and international partners	Advocacy for policy development, following other country approaches and involving consultation and collaboration with privacy, security, IT experts, child development specialists, stakeholder groups, and international partners to ensure effective and safe online environments for young people.	Very few
Protection from harmful content and misinformation	Support for prioritizing actions to protect young people from scammers, predators, harmful content, and misinformation in online spaces.	Very few
Support for offline alternatives and socialisation	Recommendation to provide and promote offline youth clubs, community activities, and opportunities for in-person socialisation, as well as reducing screen time, to support young people’s wellbeing alongside online measures.	Very few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes	Very few
No Reason Given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question	Very few

Consultation response – question 51

1. What should be considered when taking further action to support positive online spaces and content for young people? For example, how would this work in practice for services, taking into account existing best practice across industry, and who should feed into future guidance.

Summary of responses:

Many respondents supported robust regulation or age restrictions. They called for improved platform design, and restrictions on harmful or addictive features to create safer online spaces for young people. Suggestions included mandatory legal enforcement, use of fines, regulation of harmful content, improved moderation, and limits on addictive design elements. A small number specifically asked for strict age restrictions, robust age verification, and in some cases, banning or severely restricting online access for children to protect them from harm.

On the other hand, a small number of respondents emphasised empowering parents through education and controls, with some expressing scepticism or opposition to government intervention and prioritising parental responsibility. A small number showed support for creating, incentivising, and promoting positive, inclusive, and child-specific online spaces and alternatives for young people. This included dedicated platforms and support for diverse communities achieved by regulating or incentivising industry to promote high-quality content. Alongside this, few respondents said digital literacy needed to be improved, media literacy and online safety education for young people and parents, alongside efforts to establish positive social norms and address cyberbullying.

Very few respondents saw a need for further policy development, following other international approaches and involving consultation and collaboration with privacy, security, IT experts, child development specialists, stakeholder groups, and international partners to ensure effective and safe online environments for young people.

Finally, very few respondents found that actions to protect young people from scammers, predators, harmful content, and misinformation in online spaces should be prioritised. Next to this, offline youth clubs, community activities, and opportunities for in-person socialisation should be provided, as well as reducing screen time, to support young people’s wellbeing alongside online measures.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response share
Regulation and design for safer online environments	Advocacy for robust regulation, improved platform design, and restrictions on harmful or addictive features to create safer online spaces for young people. This includes mandatory legal enforcement, use of fines, regulation of harmful content, improved moderation, and limits on addictive design elements.	Very few
Age restrictions and limiting online access for children	Support for strict age restrictions, robust age verification, and in some cases, banning or severely restricting online access for children to protect them from harm.	Very few
Parental empowerment and opposition to intervention	Emphasis on empowering parents through education and controls, with some expressing scepticism or opposition to government intervention and prioritizing parental responsibility.	Very few
Promotion of positive and child-friendly online spaces	Support for creating, incentivising, and promoting positive, inclusive, and child-specific online spaces and alternatives for young people, including dedicated platforms and support for diverse communities. This could be achieved by regulating or incentivising industry to promote high quality content.	Very few
Education, digital and media literacy	Advocacy for comprehensive digital literacy, media literacy and online safety education for young people and parents, alongside efforts to establish positive social norms and address cyberbullying.	Very few
Collaboration with experts and international partners	Advocacy for policy development, following other country approaches and involving consultation and collaboration with privacy, security, IT experts, child development specialists, stakeholder groups, and international partners to ensure effective and safe online environments for young people.	Very few
Protection from harmful content and misinformation	Support for prioritizing actions to protect young people from scammers, predators, harmful content, and misinformation in online spaces.	Very few
Support for offline alternatives and socialisation	Recommendation to provide and promote offline youth clubs, community activities, and opportunities for in-person socialisation, as well as reducing screen time, to support young people’s wellbeing alongside online measures.	Very few
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question.	Very few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes.	Very few

Email responses on promoting access to high quality content

Definition of high quality content

• Many respondents considered that defining what counts as “high quality” for children aged 13 to 16 is complex, subjective and context dependent. Several respondents noted that this will vary by a child’s age, interests, needs and circumstances, and should be distinct from illegal, harmful or age-inappropriate content. Industry respondents cautioned that further work should not duplicate or cut across the Online Safety Act framework, Ofcom’s codes, or create a single arbiter of ‘quality’, which could become outdated, limit legitimate expression and reduce diversity online

• Several respondents described high quality content in functional terms, highlighting content that supports children’s learning, development and wellbeing, including building empathy, literacy and critical thinking. Some noted that this can include both educational content and creative or narrative storytelling that enables exploration and interpretation, rather than purely instructional material.

Approach to defining high quality content

• A common theme was that any definition or guidance should be developed through a collaborative, evidence-informed process. Many respondents agreed that any process to determine high quality content should use platform’s trust and safety teams, parents and carers, and developmental experts so that future guidance reflects young people’s real-world online experiences, evolving behaviours and diverse needs.
• Respondents also emphasised that high quality content cannot be assessed in isolation from the wider online environment, noting that children’s experiences are shaped by how content is surfaced, recommended and engaged with. Some cautioned against approaches that seek to categorise individual pieces of content, instead emphasising the importance of understanding wider platform dynamics.
• Several respondents stressed the importance of centring children’s perspectives, describing children and young people as informed participants in their online experiences. Some suggested moving beyond one-off consultation towards more continuous co-design approaches, including ongoing mechanisms to incorporate the views of diverse groups of young people.

The role of platforms

• Child safety, youth and civil society respondents were generally cautious about the role of online platforms in setting standards. It was noted that, while some services have begun to consider the quality of content children see, standards should not be left to companies alone, citing potential conflicts between commercial incentives and children’s best interests. Some argued that engagement-driven business models may incentivise the promotion of provocative or lower-value content, raising concerns about the extent to which platform-defined standards align with wellbeing outcomes.

Approaches to intervention

• Views also differed on what further action should be prioritised to support positive online spaces for young people. Industry respondents generally favoured guidance-led and voluntary approaches, including guidance for parents, carers and children, best practice principles for industry, reviews of international approaches and voluntary promotion of high quality content. Some respondents pointed to existing platform initiatives, such as: partnerships with authoritative publishers; article-linking features for publishers; and creator reward programmes designed to incentivise original and high quality content. Some respondents emphasised the importance of ensuring that interventions do not unintentionally restrict access to beneficial or educational content. This included concern that overly broad or precautionary approaches could reduce children’s exposure to positive content, particularly where this is delivered through creators or platforms that young people already use.
• There were also calls to consider how positive content can be more effectively delivered, including working with creators and influencers and ensuring that content promoting wellbeing or development reaches young people in the environments they already engage with.

Recommender systems and accountability

• Some child safety respondents argued for stronger intervention, particularly in relation to recommender systems and platform design. Some said that recommender systems effectively act as editors of children’s online environments without equivalent accountability or public interest obligations.
• Several respondents highlighted that algorithmically curated environments can reduce children’s control over what they see, contributing to passive consumption and exposure to distressing or low-value content. It was noted that children may recognise such content as unhelpful but feel unable to avoid it due to platform design.

Safety by design

• Safety-by-design was another prominent theme among civil society respondents. They called for clearer and more consistent standards across services, informed by existing best practice but strengthened through regulation and accountability so that protections are not optional or inconsistent.
• Some respondents emphasised that improving content quality was closely linked to addressing underlying platform incentives, including monetisation models that prioritise views or engagement. Suggested approaches included encouraging or requiring systems to deprioritise harmful content and to rebalance incentives towards content that supports positive outcomes.

Approach to future guidance

• Several respondents also stressed that future guidance should be evidence-based, iterative, and grounded in children’s rights. One respondent argued that high quality content should not be ‘bland’, but should engage young people, improve critical thinking and encourage them to think about the wider world. Other respondents emphasised children’s rights to reliable information, relaxation, and play online.
• Several respondents also emphasised the importance of reflecting diverse experiences and needs. Noting that children’s interactions with content may vary depending on factors such as vulnerability, background or personal characteristics. Some stressed that future approaches should account for these differences to ensure equitable outcomes.
• Some respondents also emphasised the importance of maintaining appropriate boundaries between child and adult content, including concerns about early exposure to adult themes or experiences, alongside the need to ensure that older adolescents can access age-appropriate information and support.

Experience, Access and Discovery:

• A number of respondents highlighted that high quality content may be available but not easily discoverable, as algorithmic systems tend to prioritise more engaging or provocative material. Some pointed to the importance of prominence and discoverability mechanisms to ensure that high quality content is surfaced to children.
• It was also noted that discussions of online activity should consider not only time spent online, but the quality and nature of content experienced, with some suggesting that concerns about excessive screen time are partly driven by exposure to low-value or repetitive content.

Risks of government intervention:

• While many respondents supported efforts to promote access to high quality content, a small number cautioned against expanding policy intervention in this space, arguing that existing frameworks addressing harmful content are sufficient and that attempts to define or promote “quality” could risk limiting diversity or introducing unintended constraints on content.

Support for parents and carers

This section sought views on how much control parents should have over their children’s online experiences, exploring how this should vary for children of different ages. Lastly, this section sought views on what could help parents and carers more effectively use parental controls.

Consultation response – question 52

1. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “Parents should have control over the online experiences of their children”?

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “Parents should have control over the online experiences of their children”?	All responses	Of which parents…
Response Percent	Response Total	Response Percent	Response Total
Strongly agree	58%	11,696	68%	6,260
Somewhat agree	27%	5,390	23%	2,086
Neither agree nor disagree	5%	1,058	3%	299
Somewhat disagree	5%	1,040	3%	289
Strongly disagree	5%	922	3%	238
Don’t know/ Prefer not to answer	1%	236	1%	75
	answered	20,342		9,247
	skipped	4,192		814

Consultation response – question 53

1. How should this level of control change for children of different ages? For example, a 16-year-old and an 11-year-old.

Summary of findings:

Many respondents to this question emphasised the importance of graduated, age-appropriate online controls, suggesting that restrictions should be strongest for younger children and relaxed over time, with flexibility for parental discretion based on individual needs and circumstances. A small number highlighted the need for clear content and platform restrictions remaining in place until adulthood to ensure consistent protection. A small number also stressed that controls should be complemented by education and digital literacy, alongside open communication to support children’s safe and responsible use of online spaces.

Few respondents did not provide a substantive reason for their views. Similarly, few raised concerns about overreach, including potential negative impacts of excessive controls on children’s wellbeing, privacy, and relationships. Very few respondents pointed to the need for a coordinated, multi-stakeholder approach involving government and industry, while very few emphasised ensuring access to safe, educational resources even within restricted environments. Very few highlighted the need for tailored protections for vulnerable children, including those with special educational needs or disabilities, and a very few responses referenced other issues outside the main themes.

Another emerging theme was support for maintaining consistent controls until adulthood, reflecting concerns about children’s vulnerability at all ages.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response Share
Graduated, age-appropriate online controls	Online controls should be strictest for younger children and gradually relaxed as children mature, with flexibility for parental discretion based on individual needs and circumstances.	Many
Content and platform restrictions until adulthood	Harmful or sensitive content and certain platforms should remain restricted for children until adulthood to ensure consistent protection regardless of other controls.	A small number
Education and digital literacy alongside controls	Online controls should be complemented by ongoing education, guidance, and open communication to foster children’s digital literacy and responsible online behaviour as they gain independence.	A small number
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question.	Few
Concerns about overreach and negative impacts of controls	Excessive or abusive online controls, government overreach, privacy issues, and negative effects on children’s wellbeing and relationships are significant concerns, with suggestions for mechanisms to report misuse.	Few
Multi-stakeholder responsibility for child online safety	Ensuring child online safety requires coordinated action from government, industry, and platform providers, especially as parental controls become less effective with age.	Very few
Guaranteed access to safe educational resources	Children should always have access to age-appropriate educational resources and safe, moderated online spaces, even when strict controls are applied.	Very few
Tailored protections for vulnerable children	Children with special educational needs, disabilities, or in vulnerable circumstances require additional, tailored online protections beyond standard age-based controls.	Very few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes.	Very few

Consultation response – question 54

1. What would help parents and carers to more effectively use parental controls? For example, more information on how to do this on purchase of a phone, help from platforms on how to set up, or greater standardisation across tools.

Some respondents emphasised the importance of education and ongoing support for parents, highlighting the need for clear guidance, practical training, and accessible resources to help parents understand and use parental controls effectively. Similarly, some respondents stressed the need for user-friendly and accessible parental controls, including simple, intuitive, and standardised systems that work across devices and platforms.

A small number of respondents pointed to the need for stronger legal and industry responsibility, including regulatory frameworks and greater accountability for technology companies. A small number also supported mandatory and default parental controls, with built-in, age-appropriate settings that are difficult for children to bypass.

Few respondents highlighted the importance of parental responsibility and open communication, emphasising that active engagement with children should complement technical controls. Similarly, few respondents stressed the need for technically robust and advanced parental control features, including reliable systems with enhanced monitoring and security capabilities.

Very few respondents raised broader concerns or additional considerations. These included scepticism about the effectiveness or fairness of parental controls, as well as the value of community and peer support, alternative or complementary approaches, and improved device and platform design tailored for children. Very few also referenced the importance of customisable controls, centralised management systems, and privacy and transparency in how controls operate.

Very few respondents highlighted the need for tailored approaches for vulnerable children, while a very few suggested more extreme or satirical measures reflecting frustration with existing solutions. Very few expressed uncertainty or no clear opinion, and a very few responses discussed other issues outside the main themes or provided no substantive reason.

Theme Name	Theme Description	Response share
Education and ongoing support for parents	Comprehensive, accessible education, clear guidance, practical training, and ongoing support are essential to empower parents and carers to understand, set up, and effectively use parental controls and discuss online safety with their children.	Some
User-friendly and accessible parental controls	Parental controls should be simple, intuitive, standardised, unified across devices and platforms, accessible and affordable for all parents, with clear instructions and user-friendly interfaces to increase usability.	Some
Legal and industry responsibility for parental controls	Stronger legal frameworks, regulatory oversight, and greater responsibility from technology companies, platforms, ISPs, device manufacturers, and retailers are needed to mandate, standardise, and enforce effective parental controls.	A small number
Mandatory and default parental controls	Parental controls and safety features should be enabled by default, built into devices and platforms, and mandatory or pre-configured for child accounts, with robust age-appropriate settings that are difficult for children to bypass.	A small number
Parental responsibility and open communication	Active parental involvement, responsibility, and open communication with children about online safety are essential complements to technical controls, fostering understanding and cooperation.	Few
Technical robustness and advanced functionality	Parental controls must be technically robust, secure, reliable, regularly updated, and include advanced features such as remote management, monitoring, reporting, notifications, and strong protections against circumvention.	Few
Scepticism and concerns about parental controls	There are concerns about the effectiveness, fairness, or necessity of parental controls, including issues of privacy, overreach, and the potential for children to circumvent controls, as well as suggestions for alternative approaches.	Very few
Community and peer support for parental controls	Community engagement, peer support networks, and school involvement can help parents learn from each other, access help, reinforce safe online habits, and consistently use parental controls.	Very few
Alternative and complementary approaches to parental controls	Complementary strategies such as online safety education for children, delaying device access, encouraging offline activities, and promoting parental modelling and discipline can support or serve as alternatives to technical parental controls.	Very few
Device and platform design for children	Devices, apps, and platforms should be specifically designed for children, with built-in restrictions, child profiles, and options for basic or ‘dumb’ phones to limit risks and simplify parental control management.	Very few
Customisable and flexible parental controls	Parental controls should be highly customisable and flexible, allowing parents to tailor settings to the age, needs, and maturity of each child, including options for individual adjustments, monitoring, and graduated access.	Very few
Extreme or satirical suggestions for parental controls	Some suggestions include banning social media for all ages or using surveillance cameras, reflecting frustration or scepticism about current solutions.	Very few
Centralised management of parental controls	Centralised dashboards or unified systems that allow parents to manage controls across multiple devices and platforms would streamline monitoring and management.	Very few
Uncertainty or no opinion on parental controls	Some express uncertainty, lack of a clear opinion, or believe that nothing would help parents and carers use parental controls more effectively.	Very few
Privacy, security, and transparency in parental controls	Parental controls should respect privacy, be secure, transparent in their operation, minimise intrusive data collection, and provide parents with clear information about data handling and the ability to review and adjust settings.	Very few
No reason given	The response does not provide a substantive answer to the question.	Very few
Other	The response discusses an issue not covered by the listed themes.	Very few
Vulnerability-specific parental controls and guidance	Guidance and controls should be tailored to the needs of vulnerable groups, such as children with disabilities or those in care, to ensure effective protection for all.	Very few

Email responses on screentime guidance for parents and carers

Summary of responses:

Support for parental controls

• There was broad consensus among respondents that parental controls have an important role to play in keeping children safe online. Many expressed agreement that parents should have some control over their children’s online experiences, particularly for younger children.
• Industry respondents in particular described them as central tools for empowering families and enabling tailored online experiences that reflect individual needs. Some also expressed views that parents are best placed to make decisions for their children and their online experiences. For gaming in particular, the role of Pan-European Game Information (PEGI) ratings was highlighted as a tool to support parents to make these decisions.
• Some respondents highlighted that parental control systems, particularly in sectors such as gaming, have been developed over a number of years and continue to evolve alongside new technologies. These systems were described as part of a broader, collaborative model involving industry, regulators and civil society.
• It was also noted that parental controls can support a wider range of outcomes beyond safety, including helping families manage screen time, spending and interactions, and supporting the development of healthy digital habits.

Views on industry standards for parental controls

• While some industry organisations expressed support for industry standards on parental controls, others noted a preference for service specific offerings over one mandated approach. Some organisations highlighted that a service specific approach allows individual platforms to develop the most helpful tools for their service. One organisation also noted that this flexibility was particularly important for SMEs. It was also highlighted that some services already operate graduated age-appropriate systems, including age-based accounts with varying levels of default protections. Alongside this, some industry organisations also provided details of existing work to support parents and provide parental controls tools.

• Some respondents also cautioned that mandating specific parental control tools in legislation could reduce flexibility and may not remain effective as technologies evolve. A number of respondents emphasised that controls should be tailored to the design and user base of individual services, rather than applied through a one-size-fits-all approach.

Parental controls as part of a wider online safety intervention

• There was generally agreement that parental controls are not sufficient on their own, in particular among civil society organisations. They noted that parental controls should be one tool within a wider online safety system, and that this should not shift responsibility from platforms or the government to parents. Respondents noted that these tools should sit alongside platform responsibility, regulatory oversight, and safe platform design.
• ·       Some respondents emphasised that parental controls should not be relied upon as the primary safeguarding mechanism, noting that platform-level design, regulation and industry accountability are critical to addressing systemic harms, particularly those driven by recommender systems.
• ·       A number of respondents also argued that responsibility for protecting children from harmful content should sit primarily with platform operators, rather than being placed on parents.
• Others highlighted that parental controls can be used as an alternative or complement to age assurance approaches, particularly where these provide a more proportionate or privacy-preserving means of managing children’s access to content.

Age-based approach to parental controls

• Many respondents expressed support for a graduated, age-based approach to parental controls. This typically involved higher levels of parental control for younger children, with increasing autonomy for older teenagers.
• ·       Some respondents emphasised that while parental controls should reduce as children grow older, appropriate safeguards or “guardrails” remain necessary at all stages, including for older adolescents.
• It was also noted that the effectiveness of parental controls may diminish as children become more independent online, with a greater emphasis needed on communication, trust and supporting young people to manage their own online experiences.

Difficulties for parents using parental controls

• Respondents also highlighted a number of challenges with current parental control tools. They noted that parental controls are often difficult to locate, hard to use, and vary across platforms. It was also noted that parents were not always aware of what tools were available.
• ·       Respondents also highlighted that applying controls across multiple platforms and devices can be complex and time consuming, contributing to low uptake and inconsistent use.
• ·       Some noted that current approaches can place an unrealistic burden on parents to act as “technical experts”, navigating different systems and settings across services.
• It was also highlighted that support is often not available at the point when it is most needed, such as during device or account setup, and that clearer and better-timed guidance could improve use.

Limitations of parental controls in protecting children online

• Some organisations highlighted the possible limitations of parental controls. Some noted that parental controls are not able to address more systemic harms, such as those arising from recommender systems or what a child might encounter when they are on a platform. Others set acknowledged that parents should not be the sole line of defence and that platforms and regulation have a role to play. Finally, it was also set out that not all parents have the same amount of time, confidence, or digital literacy required to use these tools effectively, which risks creating unequal outcomes for children.
• Some respondents noted that parental controls can often be bypassed, including through peer networks or alternative access routes, limiting their effectiveness. It was also highlighted that parental controls are often reactive, being applied after a child has already encountered harm, rather than preventing exposure in the first place.
• A number of respondents noted that parental controls may not be effective in addressing harms driven by platform design, including recommender systems, or in influencing the content children encounter within platforms.

Parental controls should preserve children’s privacy and rights

• Some also emphasised the importance of preserving children’s rights when using parental controls. They expressed that parental controls should not enable excessive surveillance and the risks this could pose to children, in particular those seeking support online. Some also noted the importance of ensuring these tools appropriately balance privacy and autonomy.
• Many respondents emphasised the importance of ensuring that parental controls do not restrict children’s ability to access confidential or sensitive support, particularly for those in vulnerable situations.

Making parental controls easier to use

• There was support for ensuring parental controls were more standardised, simple, and accessible. Some organisations advocated for safer platform design and “on by default” protections to reduce the burden on parents. One organisation expressed support for setting minimum standards rooted in regulation, instead of voluntary approaches.
• Some respondents highlighted the importance of reducing friction in the setup and use of parental controls, noting that simple, intuitive tools can support greater uptake and effectiveness. There were also calls for greater integration across devices and platforms, allowing parents to manage controls more consistently across services.

Ways to ensure parents feel confident using parental controls

• The importance of ensuring information about parental controls was accessible was highlighted by respondents. Some organisations advocated for better support and education for parents on these tools more broadly, including through schools, trusted independent organisations or awareness raising campaigns. A few organisations highlighted opportunities for collaboration between industry, government and child safety organisations. Some suggested requirements for platforms to provide clear guidance on their parental controls tools, including what they do and do not do. Two organisations suggested there was a role for government to develop central guidance for parents to support them to use these tools.
• Some respondents also emphasised that parents require platform-specific knowledge about how services operate and the risks they present, rather than generalised guidance alone. It was also noted that parental confidence is closely linked to broader digital literacy, with calls for ongoing support to help parents understand evolving technologies and platform features.
• Some respondents suggested that practical support, including in-person assistance or “drop-in” services, could help parents to set up and use parental controls more effectively.
• The importance of clear communication with children was also highlighted, with some respondents noting that explaining the purpose of controls can improve their effectiveness and support trust-based relationships.

Respondent breakdown

The full consultation collected only a small amount of personal information about respondents. Breakdowns are displayed below.

Are you answering as a private individual or on behalf of an organisation?	Response Percent	Response Total
Private individual	97%	23,102
On behalf of an organisation	3%	707
	answered	23,809
	skipped	725

Please specify organisation type	Response Percent	Response Total
Business/trade association	13%	89
Civil society/third sector/community organisation	34%	236
Education setting	31%	211
Prefer not to answer	1%	10
Other (please specify):	21%	143
	answered	689
	skipped	23,845

Do you have a parental or caring responsibility for at least one child who will be 21 or younger by the 26th of May of this year (2026)?	Response Percent	Response Total
Yes	44%	10,061
No	48%	10,944
Prefer not to answer	9%	2,056
	answered	23,061
	skipped	1,473

As part of your current occupation, do you work with children aged 21 or younger in an education setting? (for example, as a teacher)	Response Percent	Response Total
Yes	68%	16,236
No	26%	6,142
Prefer not to answer	6%	1,349
	answered	23,727
	skipped	807

Where are you located?	Response Percent	Response Total
In the UK	97%	23,056
Outside the UK	1%	328
Prefer not to answer	1%	281
	answered	23,665
	skipped	869

Data quality

A consultation is intended to collect the range of views and insights into proposed government policy. It does not measure levels of public support for a policy option.

To maximise accessibility, the full consultation did not use any measures to prevent multiple responses. Instead, officials monitored responses for indications of coordinated responses, for example – inexplicably high numbers of responses with the same IP address, an unexplained spike in responses, or long and detailed responses completed in unduly short time periods.

No examples of coordinated inauthentic responses were identified. 93% of responses came from a unique IP address. 99% of responses came from IP addresses with only 1-3 responses. The peak number of responses from a single IP was 18, an outlier, and the largest examples related to schools.

There were no significant unexplained spikes in responses on any day, nor large numbers of responses completed unduly quickly.

Annex A – Campaign email response

Dear Secretary of State,

Please treat this email as my response to your consultation on growing up in the online world. I am responding as an individual.

I want to thank the Government for making a binding commitment to Parliament, and to parents and children across the country, that whatever else you may do in response to this consultation, you will now definitely introduce age or functionality based restrictions for under 16s, and that by no later than July you will set out your plan for making this happen.  

This is exactly what I would like to see happen, as soon as possible.  It is a relief to know that the Government is willing to stand beside the millions of parents who want to protect their children from daily exploitation by the big tech companies.  Safe design must be the price paid by tech companies to access our children in the online world.

Your consultation paper suggests a range of features and functionalities - such as algorithmically-driven content - that social media, gaming and other similar platforms could be prohibited from using in services they offer to our children.  

This also includes livestream broadcasts, location sharing, stranger-pairing, disappearing messages, infinite scrolling, autoplay, public tokens of affirmation, alerts and push notifications.

I strongly support including them all within scope of the measures that you have committed to introduce.  You should also include penalties for non-engagement, location tracking, and AI features that pose risks of attachment or manipulation for children, as recommended by The Joint Statement of Principles for Furthering the Protection of Children Online signed by 41 leading children’s organisations including the NSPCC, the Centre for Young Lives and Parentkind, and 27 bereaved parents who have lost children to these platforms.

We heard your promise and we expect you to deliver on it, no ifs or buts: raise the age for harmful social media features to 16.

Yours sincerely,

Annex B – List of organisations represented by respondents

123 Org
5Rights Foundation
Aberlour Children’s Charity
Academy of Medical Royal Colleges
Action for Children
Action on Smoking and Health, the Alcohol Health Alliance and the Obesity Health Alliance
Activision Blizzard
Ada Lovelace Institute
Adapt Inc. Research Labs
Adolescence, Mental Health and the Developing Mind Initiative
Adult Child Health and Environmental Support (ACHES)
Advance
Advanced Psychotherapy & CBT (trading name of Barnsley Hypnosis & Counselling)
Advertising Association
Age Check Certification Scheme
Age Verification Providers Association
AI Objectives Institute
Akifu Toys
Albany Primary School
Alcohol Change UK
Alcohol Focus Scotland
Alcohol Health Alliance UK
Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust
All Party Parliamentary Group for Digital Creators
All Saints School
Amazon UK (Amazon UK Services Ltd.)
Ambitious About Autism
Amersham School
Amnesty International
Analigner Partnership
Animal Sentience Committee
ANME Ltd
Anna Freud
Anthropic
Anti-Bullying Alliance
APPG on Wellbeing Economics
Applied Comics Etc
Ardleigh Green School
Ards & North Down Policing & Community Safety Partnership
ARGA Observatory
Arnold View Primary School
Arts for Labour
ASCL
ASSIST NI
Association for Competitive Technology (ACT)
Association for Young People’s Health (AYPH)
Association of Directors of Children’s Services Ltd. (ADCS)
Association of Lawyers for Children (ALC)
Aughton Parish Council NE Ward
Aurora Services Group Ltd
Autism in Affinity Spaces Project (Queen Mary University of London)
Ayrshire and Arran Health Board
Backlash
Bad Rabbit Security Limited
Banstead Community Junior School
Barnardo’s
Basis Yorkshire
Bassetts Farm Primary
Baycroft School
BCS, the Chartered Institute for IT
Be Free Campaign
Beat Eating Disorders
Bedford Hindu Society and Community Trust
Belfast City Youth Council
Belmont Juniors
Bentley Wood High School
Berkshire Youth
Bestway International Christian Centre
Big Brother Watch
Bite Back 2030
Bluebell Primary School
Bolder Academy
Bolton Methodist Churches
Bolton School
Boney Hay Primary Academy
Boundary Oak School
BPS
Brainwaves / Dementias Platform UK, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford
Breck Foundation
Brianna Ghey Legacy Project
Bridgewater Primary School
British Association for Behavioural & Cognitive Psychotherapies
British Association of Social Workers (BASW)
British Computer Society
British Film Institute (BFI)
British Medical Association (BMA)
British Psychological Society
British Screen Forum
British Sign Language Advisory Board
Brook
BSI
BT Group
Buckingham School
Buxton Sea Cadets
CAMHS
Canterbury College
Capernwray Hall
Cardiff Council / Cardiff University
Cardiff Steiner School
Cardiff Youth Service
Carers Trust
Castleford Academy
Caterham School
Catmose College
CEASE (Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation)
Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH)
Centre for Information Policy Leadership (CIPL) at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys
Centre for Protecting Women Online, The Open University
Centre for Research on Outdoor Play, University of Exeter
Centre for Technology and the Body
Centre for Young Lives
Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse
Chamber of Progress
Channel 4
Cheam High School
Child Protection Committees Scotland
Child Rights International Network (CRIN)
Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel
Childlight - Global Child Safety Institute
Childnet
Children & Young People’s Mental Health Coalition
Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland (CYPCS)
Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition
Children First (Protecting Scotland’s Children)
Children in Northern Ireland (CiNI) in partnership with NSPCC Northern Ireland
Children in Scotland
Children in Wales
Children North East
Children’s Legal Centre Wales / Swansea University CYTREC
Children’s Coalition for Online Safety
Children’s Commissioner for England’s Office
Children’s Commissioner for Wales (Comisiynydd Plant Cymru)
Children’s Health Scotland
Children’s Law Centre (CLC)
Chilwell Croft Academy
Christ Church C of E Primary School
Christ Church, Winchester
Christian Action Research and Education
Clarendon Cottage Prep School
Cledford Primary and Nursery Academy
Cliftonville Primary School
CLOSER - The home of longitudinal research (UCL Social Research Institute)
Cloudflare
CNI Scotland
Co-Design Futures
Coldfall Primary School
Collective Shout
Commission Into Countering Online Conspiracies in Schools
Commissioner for Victims of Crime Northern Ireland (CVOCNI)
Common Sense Media
Compassion in Politics
Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA)
ConnectFutures C.I.C.
Conscious Advertising Network and Dr Karen Middleton, University of Portsmouth
Consumer Choice Center
Coram
Cornerhouse (Yorkshire)
COSLA
Council for Countering Online Disinformation
Counselling Services Glasgow
Coverstar
Creative UK
Cumbria County Council
Curia AI
Cyber Champions
Cybersafe Scotland
Cygnet Healthcare
CYPF Consortium
Danscentre
Denton West End Primary
Design Bioethics Lab, Neuroscience, Ethics, and Society Team, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford
Diabetes UK
Digishield Kids (Digishield Labs Ltd)
Digital Futures for Children Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science
Digital Intimacy Coalition
Digital Mental Health Group (Orben Group), Mrc Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge
Digital Policy Alliance
Digital Poverty Alliance
Dignity Labs Ltd
Discord
Distraction Community
Ditch the Label
Dixons Academies Trust
Dorothy Barley Junior Academy
Drs Hogan and Allen
DuckDuckGo
Dundee Youth Council
Duolingo
Durham University — Digital Literacies Network
Early Years Digital Standards Action Group
East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Eastbury Community School
Eastern Education Group
eBay
Echo on Limited
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Emanuel School
Emmer Green Primary School
End Violence Against Women Coalition (EVAW)
Entain Plc
EOS at Federated Hermes Limited
Epic Games
Era — the Digital Entertainment and Retail Association
ES Teachers
Eslington Primary School
Esya Centre
Evangelical Alliance
Everycare Medway Swale Limited
Faculty of Public Health
Fair Play for Children
Family Fund
Family Help
Family Law Bar Association (FLBA)
Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI)
First Steps ED
Flippgen (Youth Town Hall)
Flux Digital Policy
Flying Start Nurseries (SW) Ltd
Forces Children Scotland
Formby High School
Forth Valley College
FOTI (Future of Technology Institute)
Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR)
Foundry Healthcare Lewes
Fox Grove School
FSM Ltd
Full Fact
Fullhurst Community College
Fundamentally Children
Future Views Today
Gamer’s Voice (Gamers Voice Ltd) / Stop Killing Games UK
Games Rating Authority
Gateshead Local Authority
GeoComply
Georgian Gardens CP School
GingerSnaps Home Ed Facts
Girlguiding UK
Global Encryption Coalition Steering Committee
Global Partners Digital
Gloucestershire County Council
GNI
Goldsmiths University of London
Good Things Foundation
Google
Great Torrington School
Greater London Authority (Mayor of London)
Grove Park Primary School
Gutchecks: Red Flags & Safety
Gwent Public Health Team, Aneurin Bevan University Health Board
Hampshire County Council
Happy Minds Kids Academy
Harlette Capital Ltd
Harrietsham CE Primary School
Harrow Monitoring Group
Health Action Research Group
Health Professionals for Safer Screens
Healthy Minds at Work
Henry Jackson Society
Heron Way Primary School
Hextable Primary
Highland Council
Highworth Grammar School
Hillesley Primary School
HM Prison and Probation Service
Holly Lodge High School
Holmer Green Senior School
Holtspur School
Hope Not Hate
Hope Service
Horseworks
Hounslow Local Authority
House of Culture Brighton C.I.C.
Huddersfield Town Foundation
Hull and East Riding Prevention Concordat for Better Mental Health
Humber Teaching Foundation NHS Trust
Hummersknott Academy
Hypereum Ltd
Ideas Foundation
IEEE Standards Association (IEEE SA)
Independent Review of Pornography (Baroness Bertin Review)
Independent Schools Council
Ineqe Safeguarding Group
Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF)
Inspired Thinking Group
Institute of Alcohol Studies
Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET)
Intercultural Roots for Public Health
International Governance of AI programme
Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB UK)
Internet Infrastructure Coalition
Internet Matters
Internet Society
Internet Watch Foundation (IWF)
Into Film
IntoUniversity
Iris Anticipa Ltd
Isle of Wight NHS Youth Forum
ISOC UK
ISPA (Internet Service Providers’ Association)
Istat
Itchen Sixth Form College
Just Treatment
K1ND.World Limited
Kape Technologies
Keeping Safe Online (KSO) Youth Group (Welsh Government digital resilience programme)
Keynsham Town Council
k-ID
King
King Edward VI CEVC School
King’s Leadership Academy Wavertree
Kooth
Lancaster and Morecambe College
Langley Park School for Girls
Leeds Arts University
LEVEL Centre
LGBT Youth Scotland
Liaura Limited
Life Church Southampton
Life Skills Education Charity
Lifelab and the Nxtgen Academy, University of Southampton
Lifelink
Lifton Community Academy
Lime Tree Nursery
LinkedIn
Longholme Methodist Church Toddler Group
Lucy Institute for Data and Society, University of Notre Dame
Luna
Lytham Highschool
Lytham St Annes High School
Mablins Lane CP School
Mad Youth Organise - Just Treatment
Maesgwyn Special School
Manchester Metropolitan University
Marie Collins Foundation
Marine Society and Sea Cadets
Marshlands Primary School
Match Group
Meadow Park School
Melbourn Primary School
Mental Health Foundation
Mental Health Innovations
Mental Health V.
MeridianFow AI
Messing Primary School
Meta Platforms Inc and WhatsApp Inc
Metrotone Studios
Mhor Collective
Microsoft
Middle Tech Coalition (MTC)
Milton Keynes City Council
Mind
Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy at the University of Cambridge
Misogyny Policy Project
Miss Estruch Biology Ltd
Mohn Centre for Children’s Health and Wellbeing, Imperial College.
Molly Rose Foundation
Montessori Society UK
Mothers Union
Movember Foundation
Mozilla
Mumsnet
Muslim Council of Britain
NAHT
Naima JPS
NaLuna Studios
NASS - National Association of Special Schools
NASUWT - The Teachers’ Union
National AIDS Trust and Chiva (Children’s HIV Association)
National Child Mortality Database (NCMD) Programme, University of Bristol
National Children’s Bureau (NCB)
National Crime Agency (NCA)
National Education Union (NEU)
National Governance Association
National Literacy Trust
National Youth Agency (NYA)
Neighbourhood Watch Network
Nessie In Ed CIC
Neurodiverse Insights
Neuro-Informed
Newcastle City Council - Public Health
NEWFoCaS
Newlands Primary School, Normanton
Nexus
Nexus NI
NHS Ayrshire and Arran
NHS Gloucestershire Foundation Trust
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde
NHSL Health Improvement
Nord Security (NordVPN)
Norfolk Local Authority
North Down and Ard’s Women’s Aid
Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
Not Yet Media Ltd
Nottingham University hospitals NHS trust
Npc
NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children)
Nuffield Foundation
Oak Tree Trust
Office of the Cheshire Police and Crime Commissioner
Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly
Oldham Youth Service
One Collective Power
Oneness Bilingual School
Online Dating and Discovery Association
Online Objectification Project Team
Online Responsibility Network (ORN) / Trust Alliance Group
Online Safety Act Network
Open Rights Group
OpenAI
OSITA (Online Safety Tech Industry Association)
Our AI Collective CIC
Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Multi Academy Trust
Oxleas Foundation NHS trust
Pact (Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television)
Paget High School
Param Shakti Peeth of UK
Parent Zone
Parent/Carer Coffee Morning Group
Parenting Across Scotland
Parentkind
Parents for A Better Internet
Park Mead Primary School
Pathways and Perspectives
Paxman Academy
Peers for Gambling Reform (PGR)
People Vs Big Tech
Peppy Agency
Persona Identities
PHA
Philpots Manor School
Pinterest
Pirate Party UK
Plan International UK
Platfform
Police Service of Northern Ireland
Premier Christian Communications
Primary School in Fife
Priory (CAMHs clinicians)
PRIVO
Pro Performance Clinics
Promo Cymru
Prospect Training Services
Prosper Care
Proton AG
PSHE Association
Public Health Agency
Public Health Led Pan Ayrshire AA ICYP Programme Board
Qoria
Queen Elizabeth’s Grammar School
Queen Mary Legal Advice Centre
Queensbury School
Quinly Ltd
Radbrook Primary School
Rainbow Trust Children’s Charity
Raise
RCPCH &Us (Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health — children, young people and family network)
Reconnect
Reddit
Reimagining RSE
Renfrewshire Child Protection Committee
Research Project Exploring the Survey for Children and Young People
Reset Tech
Resurgam Community Development Trust
Revealing Reality
Rika Digital
Rima Banerjee & Co. – Ai Compliance Specialists
RMBC
Roblox
Rokesly Junior School
Royal College of General Practitioners
Royal College of Nursing
Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH)
Royal College of Psychiatrists
Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB)
Royal Society for Public Health
Royal Statistical Society (RSS)
Rugby Free Secondary School
Rushey Mead Academy
Rye Youth Zone
Safe on Social Media
Safe Path Jordan
Safelives
Safer Young Lives Research Centre at University of Bedfordshire
SafeScreens (a campaign of UsForThem)
Safetymode Tech Ltd
Samaritans
Samsung Electronics UK
Save the Children UK
Schroders
Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration (SCRA)
Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations
Scottish Directors of Public Health Group
Scottish Sexual Health Promotion Specialists (SSHPS)
Scottish Youth Parliament (SYP)
Scouts
Sea Cadets
Secex Limited
Securehaven
Send Youth Group
Serc
Services for Education
Set@16.Org
Settlebeck School
Sex Education Forum
SHAAP (Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems)
Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust
Sheffield Digital Justice
SHERA Research group
Shetland Islands Council
Shireland CAT
Shout Out UK
Sir Graham Balfour School
Skipton and Ripon Constituency Labour Party
Skyscanner
Smartphone Free Childhood
Smartphone Free Schools Rating
Snap Inc.
Social Change
Social Media Victims Law Center / Levin Law
SocietyInside
Somerset Local Authority
South and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
South Eastern Regional College
South England Conference of Seventh Day Adventists
South Street Community Primary
South West Grid for Learning (SWGfL)
Sowerby Primary Academy
SPEAK UK
Spilsbury Holdings Limited t/a Aztec Labs
Spotify
St Anne’s CE Lydgate Primary School
St Barnabas Church, Emmer Green and Caversham Park
St Christophers
St Ignatius College
St James CE Primary School
St John’s CofE (Aided) Primary School
St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School
St Leonard’s Catholic School
St Luke’s CE Primary School
St Patrick’s Church - Woolston - Southampton
St Philip Howard Primary
St Wilfrid’s Catholic School
St. Annes Catholic Primary School
Stamplo Limited
Stirchley Primary School
Strava
Surrey County Council
Sway.ly
Targeted Youth Work
Tattershall Primary School
Teacher Tapp
techUK
TeenAegis
Tellmi Ltd
Tencent
Tender Education Arts
Thamesview School
The Authority Gap Consultancy
The Behavioural Insights Team (BIT)
The Ben Kinsella Trust
The Big House Ireland
The Bolter & Chainsword
The Brainsafe Standard
The British and Irish Law Education Technology Association (BILETA)
The Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB)
The Children’s Media Foundation (CMF)
The Children’s Society
The Citadel
The Compass Centre
The Douay Martyrs Catholic Secondary School
The FitzWimarc School
The Fostering Network
The Free Speech Union
The Graft Project
The Grove School
The Guardian Foundation
The Indigo Childcare Group
The Katie Trust
The Keystone Academy
The LEGO Group
The Next Century Foundation
The Reduce Digital Distraction Project
The Salvation Army (United Kingdom and Ireland Territory)
The Stable School (SEMH)
The University of Manchester (#So.Me, #BeeWell, SMILE Research Centre)
The Week Junior
The Yellow Wood Project CIC
The Zone Youth Leeds 17
Three Rivers Academy
TikTok
Tircea CIC
Together Association
Tor Bridge High
Trinity Church of England School
Triple P UK and Ireland
TrustDating LTD
Trustpilot
TTYY School
Twitch
UK Brain Health Foundation
Ukie (Association for UK Interactive Entertainment)
UNICEF
United Schools Federation
University of Bristol
University of Kent
University of Stirling
University of the West of England
Unpugged Coalition
Untamed
Upper School
Ustwo Games
Uzube
Vale of Glamorgan
Valley Primary School and Nursery
Verifymy Limited
Victoria Place Day Nursery
Virgin Media O2
Virgin Money Foundation
Viridis Federation
Visible Ministries- Naked Truth Project
VodafoneThree
Voice 21
Voyage Travel Marketing
VPN Trust Initiative (VTI) / Internet Infrastructure Coalition (i2Coalition)
Wainscott Primary and Nursery School
Walsall Council
Warwickshire County Council
Wavelength
Wayland Academy Secondary School
We Fix UK Now Community Support & Solutions CIC
West Dunbartonshire Council - Education, Learning and Attainment
West End Primary School
West Herts College
West Midlands Hindu Forum
West Sussex County Council
Whiston Preschool
White Ash School
White, Turing & Lovelace LLC
Wickersley Partnership Trust
Wikimedia Foundation
Wildbrain
Windsor Academy Trust
Wirral Hospitals’ School
With Kids
Wokingham Borough Council (Community Safety)
Women’s Aid Federation Northern Ireland
Women’s Resource and Development Agency (WRDA)
Woodlands (CIO)
Workers Party of Britain
Working Group on Gaming and Regulation
World Cancer Research Fund
Worthing High School
Wyvern Primary School
X
xAI
Yate Town Council
Ygam
YGG Blaendulais
Yondr
Yoti
Youngminds
Youth Sport Trust
Youthlink Scotland
Youthworks Consulting
Zero Tolerance
Zoom Communications, Inc.
Zoom Strategies

---

1. Respondents who indicated that they had “parental or caring responsibility for at least one child who will be 21 or younger by the 26th of May” ↩

2. This question is based on an Ofcom question in their nationally representative Children and Parents Media Literacy Tracker (QP48), and gives context to consultation responses. The Ofcom question was adjusted to reflect that not all consultation respondents had children, the full scope of the consultation (within questionnaire length constraints), and editorial decisions about naming specific platforms. ↩