Push to bar under-16s online
- Several governments and lawmakers are moving to restrict social-media access for under-16s, with California advancing a bill and New Zealand advertising for a director to implement a ban. - California's proposal could effectively bar under-16s from holding accounts, while New Zealand acted before its bill even reached Parliament. - Civil-liberties advocates in New York framed screen-time restrictions as constitutional questions, and BBC reporting found teens often prefer limits to outright bans ( ).
Governments from California to New Zealand are moving to keep under-16s off social media, shifting from screen-time warnings to age checks, parental consent rules and proposed account bans. (cbs12.com, beehive.govt.nz) In California, lawmakers advanced a 2026 bill that would bar children under 16 from opening social media accounts and would require parental consent for 16- and 17-year-olds, according to coverage of the April committee vote. (abc10.com, politicopro.com) That push comes after California already enacted Senate Bill 976 in 2024, a law aimed at “addictive” features rather than outright account bans. The Attorney General says the law requires rules on age assurance and parental consent, and the office held a public meeting on November 5, 2025 as part of that process. (oag.ca.gov) New Zealand’s government moved earlier. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said on May 11, 2025 that Education Minister Erica Stanford would lead work on options to restrict social media for under-16s and take proposals to Cabinet, while National Member of Parliament Catherine Wedd’s bill stayed in Parliament’s ballot. (beehive.govt.nz) Wedd’s Social Media (Age-Restricted Users) Bill was introduced on October 23, 2025. The bill says platforms must take “reasonable steps” to stop under-16s from holding accounts, creates civil penalties for failures, and would take effect six months after Royal assent. (legislation.govt.nz) This month, New Zealand’s Department of Internal Affairs briefly advertised for a Programme Implementation Director to build the new regime before any law had passed. The Post reported the full-time role was posted at the start of the week and removed on April 22, 2026. (thepost.co.nz) In New York, the fight has taken a narrower form. The SAFE for Kids Act, signed in 2024, would block addictive algorithmic feeds for users under 18 without parental consent and would ban push notifications from midnight to 6 a.m., but it does not ban minors from having accounts. (gothamist.com, nysenate.gov) A separate New York City proposal would cap social-media use for people under 17 at one hour a day unless a parent approves more time. Justin Harrison of the New York Civil Liberties Union told Gothamist that such a rule would “restrict far too much protected speech.” (gothamist.com) Courts are already shaping how far these laws can go. NetChoice, a trade group for tech companies, won an injunction blocking enforcement of California Senate Bill 976 while its appeal proceeds, showing that child-safety rules are colliding with First Amendment and due-process arguments. (netchoice.org, law.justia.com) Teenagers themselves are not all asking for a total block. In a BBC discussion with 33 children, some said they wanted stronger limits and later bedtimes for apps, while others said a blanket ban would cut them off from school updates, hobbies and friends. (msn.com, yahoo.com) The result is a fast-moving split in policy: California is testing a harder age cutoff, New Zealand is preparing for one, and New York is trying to regulate feeds and hours instead of banning access outright. What happens next will depend not just on lawmakers, but on regulators, courts and whether platforms can prove who is actually under 16. (cbs12.com, legislation.govt.nz, gothamist.com)
