UK plans default midnight social media curfew for 16- and 17-year-olds, with opt-out available

The proposed restrictions

Britain will introduce a default overnight curfew on social media apps for 16- and 17-year-olds, the government announced on Tuesday evening. Affected users would be blocked from using platforms between midnight and 6 a.m. unless they change the default setting. Features designed to keep users scrolling for longer, including videos that automatically play one after another and feeds that continually serve up personalised content, would also be switched off by default. The measures are an extension of the under-16 social media ban announced in June, which is expected to cover platforms including Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X, but not messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal.

These measures will be crucial in helping young people get the sleep they need, focus on school and college, and spend more quality time with family and friends, all of which are fundamental to building a happy, healthy and fulfilling adult life.

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology said the latest proposals aim to prevent a "cliff edge" for those who will gain access to social media when they turn 16, offering some protection from the negative effects of late-night scrolling. A government pilot involving more than 300 teenagers and parents across the UK showed that overnight curfews helped improve sleep and concentration, and that an overnight curfew was the easiest measure for families to maintain and produced the most consistent sleep benefits.

Political context and timeline

The announcement comes in one of the final acts of the Keir Starmer government, days before the Makerfield by-election. Starmer's successor Andy Burnham will be anointed Labour leader on Friday and enter 10 Downing Street on 20 July. The first set of regulations on social media restrictions will be laid before parliament by the end of 2026, with measures expected to come into force in spring 2027. The government promised "robust implementation and enforcement".

Criticism and scepticism

Critics have described the proposals as "piecemeal" and a "missed opportunity" for children's safety. Laura Trott, the Conservative shadow education secretary, called the plans a "dog's dinner".

Either they think 16 and 17-year-olds should be on social media or they don't, but curfews they can simply switch off won't achieve anything.

Andy Burrows, chief executive of the Molly Rose Foundation, said the latest move was "yet another piecemeal set of announcements, not the comprehensive plan for children's safety that's required". He added that Prime Minister Starmer "leaves office having announced a social media ban without a plan", with his likely successor to "inherit a series of missed opportunities". Beeban Kidron, founder of the 5Rights Foundation, said having a default that can be switched off was "for show and headlines, not for children".

AI chatbot safeguards

Technology Secretary Liz Kendall also wants to introduce new safeguards for children using artificial intelligence. The proposals include requiring under-18s to take regular breaks while using chatbots, and a crackdown on AI services that provide "dangerous, misleading or unverified mental health advice". Ministers are considering banning AI platforms that can imitate romantic conversations for under-18s. Media literacy skills will also be bolstered in schools.

Enforcement challenges

Ministers have clashed with Big Tech platforms over the plans, with executives at US groups arguing that young people will also be restricted from valuable resources for learning and communication. The government has stopped short of restricting virtual private networks, which allow children to avoid social media age gates by pretending they are in another country. Government research found that only 7-10% of children reported using a VPN specifically to bypass age checks. A team that advised Australia, the first country to ban social media for children, found that online platforms were stumbling at the very first step of implementing age-verification checks, rendering the ban ineffective.