{"id":30726,"date":"2026-04-28T05:01:38","date_gmt":"2026-04-28T09:01:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/worldjusticenews.com\/news\/?p=30726"},"modified":"2026-04-28T05:01:38","modified_gmt":"2026-04-28T09:01:38","slug":"british-government-to-impose-some-form-of-social-media-age-or-functionality-restrictions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worldjusticenews.com\/news\/2026\/04\/28\/british-government-to-impose-some-form-of-social-media-age-or-functionality-restrictions\/","title":{"rendered":"British Government to impose some form of social media age or functionality restrictions"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\n

The government will “impose some form of age or functionality restrictions” on social media for under-16s even if it stops short of an outright ban, Education Minister Olivia Bailey has said.<\/b><\/p>\n

Ministers proposed further amendments on Monday evening as they sought to end the stand-off with peers over the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.<\/p>\n

The House of Lords had voted in support of a social media ban for a fourth time on Monday afternoon.<\/p>\n

Conservative shadow education secretary Laura Trott described the government’s latest proposals in the Commons as a “huge step forward in keeping children safe”.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

MPs supported the government’s motion by 272 votes to 64, with the bill now returning to the Lords for what looks to be the final consideration before it receives royal assent and becomes law.<\/p>\n

Bailey did not give specific details about the action ministers would be taking but said the government was making a legal commitment that it “must” act once its consultation on whether the UK should introduce an Australia-style ban has concluded.<\/p>\n

She told the Commons: “Let us be clear: the status quo cannot continue. We are consulting on the mechanism and that is the right thing to do.<\/p>\n

“But we are clear that under any outcome we will impose some form of age or functionality restrictions for children under 16.<\/p>\n

“I can also confirm that consideration of restrictions such as curfews will be in addition not instead of this.”<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n