House of Lords pushes for Australian-style social media ban for under-16s
The House of Lords has voted in favor of a ban on social media for under-16s, mirroring a similar policy in Australia. The vote, which rejected a proposal for public consultation, sends a message to the government to raise the age limit for accessing harmful social media sites.

Briefing Summary
AI-generatedThe House of Lords has voted in favor of a ban on social media for under-16s, mirroring a similar policy in Australia. The vote, which rejected a proposal for public consultation, sends a message to the government to raise the age limit for accessing harmful social media sites. This action follows a Los Angeles court ruling that Meta and YouTube must pay damages for designing addictive products that harmed a young woman's mental health. Proponents of the ban, including Lord Nash, argue that social media platforms are deliberately addictive and harmful to children, citing the court case and the presence of bereaved parents in the gallery as motivation for immediate action. They believe the government is failing to grasp the full impact of social media on children.
Article analysis
Model · rule-basedKey claims
5 extractedIt is the second time Nash has pushed for a ban on under-16s from social media, after MPs voted against it earlier this month.
Peers were conscious that bereaved parents were watching from the gallery.
A California jury ruled that Meta and Google-owned YouTube must pay $6m in damages to a woman who became addicted to social media as a child.
House of Lords voted 266 to 141 against Keir Starmer’s proposals for a public consultation on a social media ban for under-16s.
The government is failing to understand the impact of social media on our children.