6 min read
Explained
Published:
27 Feb 2026
Last updated:
27 Feb 2026
Proposed UK social media ban and its impact on video games
TLDR:
With Parliament deciding whether to ban social media for under-16s in a Bill about schools, the UK government has announced an alternative proposal for new, flexible regulatory powers. As part of their ongoing three-month ‘national conversation’, they will launch an open consultation in March to inform any upcoming legislative changes. to identify measures for protecting minors from online harms in social media and AI chatbots. The broad nature of proposed regulatory interventions could inadvertently target video game companies.
"Consultation on children's social media use to protect young people's wellbeing and ensure safer online experiences"
Here’s our overview of where the social media ban has got to so far, what the implications for the video games industry could be, and how the government’s consultation on the topic could be the perfect opportunity to call for proportionate regulations. If you find this article helpful and want deeper analysis or tailored advice and support, then get in touch – we’d be happy to discuss how our expertise can meet your needs. Even if you’re just curious about it all, we'd love to chat.
What’s all this about a social media ban?
In January, the House of Lords amended the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill (CWSB) to include a social media ban. This amendment (Section 33 of the Lords-amended Bill) would require regulated user-to-user services to use highly effective age assurance to prevent under-16s from accessing their platforms. It’s a significant addition to the scope of the Bill, which was originally more tightly focused on education and safeguarding. The ban is not law yet – the Bill has to be agreed by both Houses before it becomes law and would then require further legislative to implement.
The government has never supported a social media ban and has always wanted to wait for better evidence on which to base regulation. Although they will therefore try to use their majority in the House of Commons to remove the blanket ban, they have signalled a commitment to taking swift action against online risks through alternative means.
Right, so what’s the consultation for?
In an (unsuccessful) attempt to stop the House of Lords adding Section 33, the government announced a consultation on January 19 – a couple of days before the Lords voted. Framed as a three-month period of ‘national conversation’, it’s looking at issues such as:
whether a social media ban for children would be effective;
if so, how best to make it work (including having a chat with Australia about theirs);
raising the digital age of consent;
exploring ways to improve the accuracy of age assurance;
implementing phone curfews to avoid excessive use, and
restricting potentially addictive design features such as ‘streaks’ and ‘infinite scrolling’
The open call-for-evidence style part of the consultation is due to open next week (w/c 2 March). The final government response to the whole consultation is expected by the summer.
If a ban à la Section 33 is enacted, this consultation would likely inform the regulations put in place to implement it (although there would be limited flexibility) as well as other related interventions.
However, the consultation should be seen in a new light, following a more recent bit of news from Number 10…
Ah, is this about the government getting some new powers?
Yep.
Fearing that they’ve not done enough to guarantee the removal of Section 33 in a House of Commons vote (the party is a bit wobbly at the moment, and rebellious Labour MPs could vote for the ban – a few dozen are known to be in favour), the government is making some more concrete promises.
On February 15, the government further clarified its stance by announcing that they would “take new legal powers” (i.e. table an amendment to the CWSB) to enable targeted actions as and when needed. We assume this means they want to be able to use secondary legislation to create restrictions on social media – a faster, lighter-touch method of creating law with far less Parliamentary scrutiny. They have committed to using the outcome of the consultation to directly inform these targeted actions, which means the consultation is suddenly very, very important.
Alongside this, the government said it would close structural gaps in the Online Safety Act (OSA) to ensure AI chatbots are covered by duties regarding illegal harms. This would be done through proposed amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill to bring chatbots into scope and ensure the preservation of child social media data.
The government has confirmed that the public part of the consultation will open in March.
Why is a social media consultation relevant for video games companies?
Remit and scope
Part of the consultation will doubtless be the need to define social media. This is absolutely crucial because if it’s drawn too broadly there’s a risk that under-16s would effectively be banned from all games with user-to-user functions.
If the ban happens as per the current wording of Section 33, the starting scope is all OSA ‘regulated user-to-user services’, with the ability for the Secretary of State to modify it and create additions/exclusions. Section 33 currently relates to the service, not to the function, so even games where comms functions are off-limits to minors would still be caught. As highly effective age-assurance is specified as the means for preventing under-16s’ access, all games in scope of the restrictions would be required to use it, even if they have not previously needed to under the OSA.
If restrictions come from the proposed broader powers, then creating a definition of social media will be part of a holistic process and can be more flexible because it doesn’t have to be bound to the OSA as a foundation. It can also be feature- or risk-led, rather than a blanket service-level ban.
Essentially, Section 33 will define social media through exclusion, whereas broader powers enable it to be defined from the ground up. Both will require approval from the Commons and the Lords, and both depend on the government recognising the differences between social media and user-to-user features in video games. It’s not a given that video games would be excepted from the definition.
Addictive design
‘Addictive design’ is also under the microscope, with potential for an overly strict approach to have disproportionate impacts on video games. the government’s objective of curbing the use of “addictive design” features could classify features like daily login streaks or infinite content feeds, as psychological harms. Decades-old game mechanics (such as rewards for regular play) which have been largely seen as anodyne, risk being caught in regulations aimed at concerns in social media.
If new regulations follow assumptions from the consultation announcement, developers may be required to redesign UI/UX elements to minimise the time children spend on their platforms. These changes could be accompanied by stricter compliance requirements for age assurance and potential new mandates for verifiable parental consent for users between 13 and 15.
What’s the best play?
The potential consequences for the video games sector could be huge, and even if Section 33 doesn’t become part of the CWSB, this issue isn’t going away. There will continue to be sustained pressure on the government to act on the issues raised during the Bill’s progress. Effective, proportionate regulation should recognise different contexts, which means industry needs to make this clear.
The best step for the industry is to establish a clear boundary between games and social media, between game functions and comms functions, and push for an approach that either excludes games from the ban or at least allows a delineation between service and function so that younger players can remain on the platform if they are barred from comms features.
The next several months will be key for the industry to engage in the discussion of the regulatory framework, with the incoming open consultation a perfect opportunity to raise government awareness of the issues.
How can Flux help me?
Although the formal consultation paper has yet to be published, it is key that video game companies proactively prepare to engage in the upcoming discussions to ensure their unique perspectives are represented in the proposed measures. Industry insights are essential for educating policymakers on the differences in risk profiles between traditional social media platforms and video games. By establishing clear differences between social interaction and core gameplay functions, the industry can help prevent the imposition of one-size-fits-all requirements that may impose technical and financial burdens exceeding the capabilities of developers, particularly smaller studios.
If you require advice on how these potential interventions may impact your business or need expert support in drafting your response to the upcoming consultation, we can help you.
Author: Veronica Perez, Policy Advisor