The UK government is pushing a plan to impose a total ban on social media use by those under 16 starting next year. As moves to regulate youth social media spread worldwide, U.S. big tech companies are strongly pushing back, calling it "overregulation".

On the 15th (local time), Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced he would push legislation to bar those under 16 from using major social media platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, X, and Snapchat. Messenger services such as WhatsApp and education- or child-focused services like YouTube Kids and Google Classroom are excluded. The UK government aims to pass the bill in Parliament by the end of this year and implement it early next year.

At a press conference held on Downing Street the same day, Starmer said, "Every parent already knows. Social media is making children unhappy. It makes online bullying and abuse easier and harms mental health," adding, "It is time for the government to respond to the voices of families who have demanded change."

The regulation goes beyond a simple age limit. The government plans to ban live broadcasts by those under 16 and to restrict adults from approaching children via online gaming platforms. It also intends to block minors from using so-called "romantic chatbots" that tout relationship counseling or emotional connection. Measures to block circumvention via virtual private networks (VPNs) are also under review.

The move aligns with a global trend of tightening youth social media rules. Australia last year introduced the world's first law banning social media use by those under 16, and France, Canada, Greece, Malaysia, and Indonesia are pursuing similar measures. In South Korea, bills to ban social media use by those under 14 and to limit use time for those under 16 are pending in the National Assembly.

U.S. big tech companies reacted immediately in opposition.

YouTube argued that "a blanket ban could instead drive teens toward spaces with higher anonymity and less regulation." Meta likewise said, "There is a possibility they will move from platforms where parental controls are available to more dangerous alternative services." Elon Musk, the owner of X, criticized it as "a wolf in sheep's clothing," saying, "The real purpose is to enable the government to track everyone."

Acknowledging that some young people might try to circumvent the rules, Starmer countered, "We do not abolish the drinking age simply because minors drink in secret," adding that it is "a fully enforceable policy."

There are also concerns that the move could spill over into a diplomatic issue with the United States. Jane Hartley, the U.S. ambassador to the UK, recently expressed opposition to sweeping social media bans. U.S. President Donald Trump has in the past raised issues with the UK's digital regulation and mentioned the possibility of trade retaliation.

The Guardian reported that in recent weeks UK government officials have been in contact with the Trump administration to explain that the measure is not aimed at U.S. technology companies.

A government official told the Guardian, "We have been communicating with companies, providing advance briefings to the U.S. administration, and pursuing a media strategy to correct misunderstandings," adding, "This measure is not about taking on U.S. tech companies but about protecting children in the UK."

Some observers also analyze that Starmer has pulled out a strong regulatory card to forge a political breakthrough.

The Starmer government has recently been under pressure from falling approval ratings amid inflation, immigration issues, and controversy over increasing defense spending. Even within the Labour Party, talk of replacing the leadership has been circulating.

The youth social media regulation bill enjoys broad support among parents. In a survey cited by the UK government, about 90% of parents said they support banning social media use by teens. Not only the Conservative Party but also Labour backbenchers and civic groups have largely welcomed it.

However, Starmer drew a line under the interpretation that this is political calculation. He said, "I used to be skeptical of such regulatory policies, but after reviewing the evidence and materials produced during the government's 12-week review, I changed my mind," adding, "This is a decision for children's safety, not for political reasons."