‘Mindful consumption’: What would an under-16s social media ban mean for brands?

The UK government is seeking “views from parents, young people and civil society” on whether social media should be banned for under-16s, after Australia brought in similar legislation in December. 

The three month consultation launched yesterday (19 January), will also explore whether there should be social media curfews overnight, breaks to stop excessive use or ‘doom scrolling’ and how to enforce existing laws around age verification.

Platforms are reacting with stricter verification measures. Reuters reported last week, TikTok will roll out new age-detection technology across Europe in the coming weeks, following platforms such as Snapchat in introducing parental control centres.

With other countries alongside the UK rumoured to be considering a social media ban to protect children, what does this mean for brands and marketers?

Overall, consensus is a ban would be a positive move from a safeguarding point of view to remove children from experiencing harm online, with the impact on marketing in general not predicted to be massive.

EMEA CEO at We Are Social Jim Coleman believes a blanket ban would be “clunky”, but unlikely to have “an enormous impact on marketing” as a whole. However, brands with products specifically targeted at teens may have to change the way they’re targeting from a “tone of voice and messaging perspective”.

“Suddenly they have to target the parent rather than the child,” he suggests.

‘A new frontier’: 5 trends that will impact social media and influencer marketing in 2026

Coleman feels it will raise the question of whether content has to be shifted to longer-form accessible formats, noting that “teenagers have historically been the engine of viral marketing”.

“The very easy access stuff on YouTube, branded content on YouTube, does that become part of a content strategy more than seeding something or jumping on something that you’ve seen from a younger age group?” questions Coleman.

Senior strategist and planner at agency Socially Powerful, Joe Sheaves, feels brands won’t be massively affected by any proposed ban, as often under-16s aren’t the audience specifically being targeted due to “responsible marketing” policies.

“The way that social works, how it’s always worked as long as it’s been around, is that although marketing or content is not necessarily targeted to them, people are naturally exposed to it,” says Sheaves.

Observing the ban already playing out in Australia, Sheaves explains for clients it has been “business as usual” as children weren’t primarily targeted.

Coleman agrees, explaining that when it comes to Australia such a ban is “really hard to police”, as there are loopholes such as fake dates of birth. He hasn’t heard of brands in Australia doing anything “dramatically different” following the ban.

Platform shifts

That said, Sheaves suggests consideration among future buyers (the younger generation) may drop slightly as “social is such a powerful discovery tool”.

“Brands might feel a slight knock on effect in terms of early cultural visibility and long-term salience with people that are going to be the future buyers of their brand,” says Sheaves.

To counteract this, he argues “social is not the only driver of brand growth”, nor is it the only place “where trust is built”, suggesting word of mouth could still drive consideration among the younger generation.

Both Sheaves and Coleman believe brands may lean more into platforms like Roblox and Fortnite to reach a younger audience.

Marketing Week’s year ahead for social media and influencer marketing analysis highlighted a potential shift to “closed platforms”, such as Discord, as being a potential trend for the year.

“The majority of the excluded generation, the Gen A’s, are simply going to shift to places where they can access social. Whether it be non age-gated spaces, whether it’s places like Roblox or gaming platforms, or if you’re at home and you’ve got a logged out YouTube where you can still access everything,” says Coleman.

“Brands might adjust their social strategy to focus on some of those areas kids might go when they are banned from the mainstream social platforms.”

He notes that it’s harder to track the effectiveness of marketing on smaller platforms or channels where people aren’t logged in, which could deter brands.

Brands might maybe feel a slight knock on effect in terms of early cultural visibility and long-term salience with people that are going to be the future buyers.

Joe Sheaves, Socially Powerful

Senior principal, research in the Gartner marketing practice, Jessica Dervyn, notes any potential UK ban would occur in a media environment already experiencing “reduced social impressions, greater regulatory scrutiny and higher costs to acquire meaningful attention”.

“For brands it would mean losing their direct line to a highly engaged segment. It would reduce the size and composition of social audiences that drive brand discovery, virality and UGC [user generated content] flows. Teens currently generate a substantial share of the organic trends and endorsement cues other consumers use to evaluate products,” she warns.

To counteract this, Dervyn advises brands to continue to track customer behaviour and “re-weight spend” to relevant channels, which she agrees may be “dark social, niche communities, offline/experimental”.

She also claims in-person activations can “grow positive perceptions” among families and younger audiences, and brands targeting to younger audiences may need to shift messaging towards parents.

Creator economy effects

From a creator economy perspective, Sheaves believes it helps if ‘kidfluencers’ have restricted access to remove threats or bad language they may be exposed to online.

Dervyn also feels brands will need to “re-think their partnerships in the UK” as content from teen creators “won’t perform as well in the short term” due to their smaller reach.

“Creators should prepare for a potential ban and maybe start shifting to more family‑friendly messaging, parent decision‑making, and safer, more regulated content environments,” says Dervyn.

Coleman notes a ban may restrict the growth of younger influencers and lead to drop offs in their under-16 following.

“There is a question to be raised – does it limit a generation’s access to seeing creative talent and also a career path for them?” he asks.

Overall, Coleman feels a ban is “not the answer” to solve the wider issue at hand. Instead, it’s a case of “fostering better digital habits” and encouraging “mindful consumption”, yet he says it will be interesting to watch how certain brands respond to any potential ban.