Report Card for Big Tech: How Are Platforms Performing on Child Safety?
To assess how Big Tech is measuring up on its commitments to the safety and wellbeing of under-16s in our increasingly digital world, CMF Executive Group member Marc Goodchild provides an overview and analysis of recent events.
The spring term opened with a significant salvo from the Australian government, which famously moved to restrict access to major social media platforms for under-16s (with companies including YouTube and Roblox lobbying hard to be carved out of scope).
Critics rightly noted the pace felt rushed, but it was the crescendo of a decade of deliberation[1] over a social media landscape that parents, educators, clinicians and young people themselves have described as simply out of hand and only getting worse.
Whether the ban will have the desired effect remains to be seen, but the global response has been striking: within a matter of months, Brazil, Malaysia, France and Indonesia have followed suit, and Denmark, Spain, Greece, Slovenia and others have draft legislation progressing through their parliaments.
Meanwhile, in North America, class actions against Meta and YouTube have accused both companies of knowingly ignoring data about underage users on their platforms, and of deliberately deploying so-called “dark pattern” design features to keep minors hooked – effectively grooming a generation of children into platform dependency before they were legally old enough to be there.[2]
Together, these actions are being heralded as Big Tech’s tobacco moment, and regulators globally are finally paying attention. Not before time you might say.
Facebook (founded in 2004) and YouTube (the following year) are 22 and 21 years old respectively. They can no longer claim to be the new kids on the block. According to Ofcom, YouTube reaches nearly nine in ten UK children aged 3-17, while Instagram reaches close to half of all 8- 17-year-olds: together accounting for the lion’s share of children’s online attention and constituting something very close to a duopoly. As we have argued many times in the past ‘with such market power comes responsibility’… surely.
When the UK government signalled that it was minded to follow Australia’s lead, the response from Washington was swift and unambiguous. The Trump administration made clear it viewed any such move as an attack on US commercial interests and free speech, suspending a landmark £31 billion “tech prosperity” deal as an unmistakable signal about the price of regulatory independence.[3]
Google and X were quick to add their own tuppence worth, warning that the Online Safety Act’s fee structure and compliance burdens could actively disincentivise investment in the UK market.
At the same time, pro-child safety advocates made a compelling counter-argument: that a rushed blanket ban might do more harm than good – driving children toward unregulated corners of the internet rather than creating genuinely safer spaces. Together, these pressures pushed the government toward a second child-related consultation in as many months.
What this did do, however, was create breathing room for a more considered conversation in the corridors at Westminster. With the ban question parked pending consultation, MPs on the CMS Select Committee were able to pursue their detailed investigation into the value of children’s media and ask a question that deserves more airtime: whether recommendation algorithms have quietly polluted the viewing diet of British children in much the same way that social media feeds have distorted what they read, watch and believe.[4]
The inquiry has produced some illuminating sessions, featuring children’s media practitioners including our own Greg Childs, Blue Zoo’s Oli Hyatt, Children’s Laureate Frank Cottrell Boyce, and representatives from broadcasters and distributors including the BBC, TikTok and YouTube. (All sessions are available to watch on the CMF YouTube channel if you want a flavour of the scrutiny UK parliamentarians can bring to bear).
The Committee’s work is ongoing, and YouTube still owes some follow-up answers. Separately, the government has issued its first formal guidance on recommended screen time for the very youngest viewers, a quiet but significant step, and one that advocacy groups have until May to build on as they seek to define what Age-Appropriate Design should really mean for the next generation of internet services for next-gen digital natives.
The CMF February Children’s Media Summit provided good food for thought for our response to the government’s green paper on BBC Charter renewal – a document that, notably, contains its own references to the BBC’s evolving partnerships with platforms such as YouTube and what obligations of reach, quality and child safety those partnerships should carry.
Then March arrived, and with it, a series of events that brought all eyes back to the social media consultation.
- The government’s “Growing Up in the Online World” consultation formally opened on 2 March, seeking views whether there should be an outright ban after all.
- Days later, Ofcom and the ICO published a landmark joint statement, signalling that the two regulators were finally committed to working in a more joined-up way on age assurance; making clear that self-declaration of age by users was no longer acceptable as a primary safeguard.
- The Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee held a one-off evidence session on 11 March, weighing the case for and against a ban.
- Across the pond, a New Mexico jury found Meta liable for nearly $400 million in damages for failing to protect children on its platforms from predators.
- And back in the UK, the ICO issued a £14.47 million fine to Reddit for failing to implement robust age checks under the Age-Appropriate Design Code, finding that Reddit had knowingly allowed large numbers of under-13s onto its platform without any meaningful verification mechanism.
Reddit is appealing the decision, but the message from regulators was unambiguous: the era of platforms hiding behind a tick-box and a terms of service clause is over.
As for the CMF? We’ve been actively engaging with the 5Rights Foundation consortium and have also been in contact with Baroness Longfield’s Centre for Young Lives, bringing our industry’s experience to bear; drawing on the institutional knowledge of members who helped shape broadcaster responses to the first and second waves of the internet, AND exploring how a new BBC Charter, an invigorated ICO, and a refreshed Ofcom remit on social media could together provide the right apparatus for lasting change.
The window for influence is real – but it will not stay open long. We must ensure that those with children’s best interests at heart are not squeezed out of the conversation by the big lobbyists.
Let us know if you wish to get involved.
[1]Australia’s regulatory journey began with the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Act 2015, which established the Office of the Children’s eSafety Commissioner. Powers were expanded in the Online Safety Act 2021. A Roadmap for Age Verification was published in 2023. The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act was passed by parliament on 29 November 2024, with enforcement commencing 10 December 2025.
[2]The US legal approach is shaped by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which largely shields platforms from liability for content published by third parties. The class actions therefore focus instead on the platforms’ own design choices and stated safety commitments, arguing that dark pattern features were knowingly deployed to addict underage users — an area not protected by Section 230.
[3]In February 2025, President Trump issued an executive memo threatening tariffs on countries deemed hostile to American digital companies, explicitly naming the UK alongside Austria, Canada, France, Italy, Spain and Turkey. The White House framed foreign tech regulation as ‘overseas extortion’ and a violation of American sovereignty. The suspension of the UK’s £31bn tech prosperity deal — which had included pledges of £22bn from Microsoft and £5bn from Google to create an AI growth zone in north-east England — followed in December 2025, after concerns that the Online Safety Act would restrict American AI companies. A source close to the decision noted: ‘Americans went into this deal thinking Britain was going to back off regulating American tech firms but realised it was going to restrict the speech of American chatbots.’
[4]The CMS Select Committee inquiry is examining how high-quality children’s media is commissioned, funded and distributed across public service broadcasting and commercial video streaming services. It has so far heard evidence on the economics of children’s content production, the role of PSBs versus commercial platforms, and whether algorithmic recommendation systems on video platforms have distorted children’s viewing in ways analogous to social media’s effects on information consumption. YouTube’s representatives appeared before the committee and were asked to provide follow-up answers on a number of points.
Creativity. Connection. Reinvention — A first look at the 2026 Yearbook Working with Allies