America’s Social Media Ban Might Be Closer Than You Think

By Robert Alexander

Senior Crime & Court Reporter

ShareNewsweek is a Trust Project member

Around the world, governments are advancing strict age-verification requirements for social media, and the United States may not be far behind.

A growing combination of international policy shifts and ongoing U.S. litigation against Meta is bringing the prospect of an under-16 social-media ban closer to political and regulatory consideration than ever before.

Newsweek contacted Meta, the California Attorney General’s Office, the New York Attorney General’s Office, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, the Washington State Attorney General’s Office, the Federal Trade Commission, the Australian eSafety Commissioner, Macquarie University, and Western Sydney University for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Monday.

Why It Matters

Governments around the world are moving quickly to impose strict age limits on social media, raising the stakes for U.S. regulators already pressuring Meta over its handling of underage users.

Australia and Malaysia have enacted under-16 bans, Europe is rolling out privacy-preserving age-verification standards, and a multistate lawsuit alleges Meta deliberately avoids tools that could keep younger children off its platforms.

Supporters argue such measures could ease mounting mental-health and safety concerns, while critics warn that forcing teens off mainstream platforms may drive them into riskier online spaces.

The global shift is reshaping expectations for how—and whether—the U.S. will follow with its own rules.

...

What To Know

In the United States, the only national age rule for social-media use comes from the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), a 1998 law that prohibits companies from collecting personal data from children under 13 without verifiable parental consent.

COPPA does not ban children under 13 from using social media, but it makes platforms legally responsible if they allow young users to create accounts and then collect data without a parent’s approval.

Because most major platforms rely on data-driven advertising and do not want to manage parental consent systems, they simply set their minimum age at 13 to avoid COPPA obligations.

Importantly, COPPA hasn’t been substantially updated since the early internet era, so it does not address teenagers aged 13–15, does not require age verification, and leaves enforcement largely dependent on whether platforms knowingly host under-13 users—an issue at the center of ongoing litigation against Meta.

The 13-Year Standard Under Strain

That is about to change because a growing number of countries are adopting under-16 social-media bans and robust age-verification systems, raising pressure on the U.S. to modernize rules written before today’s platforms existed.

At the same time, a major multistate lawsuit alleges Meta knowingly avoids effective age checks, increasing the likelihood that courts or Congress will impose new national standards beyond COPPA’s age-13 baseline.

Strict age-verification in the United States would likely mirror measures emerging overseas, meaning platforms could be required to prove a user’s age using tools far stronger than today’s self-declaration systems—including third-party age-assurance checks, government-issued ID or video-selfie verification, or privacy-preserving “age tokens” that confirm whether someone is over or under a set age without revealing their identity.

A Global Push Toward Stricter Age Checks

...

Australia has set the clearest precedent.

Under a new law, age-restricted social media platforms must “take reasonable steps to prevent Australian under 16s from having accounts” beginning December 10, 2025.

The law imposes significant penalties on violators—up to A$49.5 million, according to the government’s fact sheet—and requires that platforms adopt age-assurance tools.

The policy change reflects concerns about the mental-health impacts of heavy social-media use.

Clinical psychologist Danielle Einstein, who supports the ban, told Channel News Asia that “the drivers to stay connected to social media are just too strong,” citing pressures for validation and fear of social scrutiny among adolescents.

She argued that youth are particularly vulnerable, saying this is “especially at that early high school age, where it's so important to fit in… when you're not yet secure.”

Einstein compared the new restriction to Australia’s school phone bans, stating: “We saw less bullying at school, better academic results for kids, and a decline in mental health care needs.”

But critics warn that strict age limits may produce unintended consequences.

Professor Amanda Third of Western Sydney University, who co-signed an open letter opposing the Australian ban, said: “By evicting children from social media platforms, you take away all incentive for technology platforms to design for children… (They) will end up in spaces that are darker, less well-regulated and not designed for them.”

She cautioned that cutting off access may limit young people’s ability to participate in civic discussions, adding: “They use it to seek information, to learn new skills… and take action on the many issues that impact their lives.”

Australia is not alone.

Malaysia announced, “Malaysians below 16 will be barred from creating social media accounts starting next year,” with mandatory electronic identity checks, its communications minister said in 2025.

Several European governments are simultaneously developing shared frameworks for age-verification apps.

The Meta Lawsuit Intensifies U.S. Pressure

These developments have intensified scrutiny of U.S. policy.

American teens may still join most platforms at 13, but this norm is being challenged by an ongoing multistate lawsuit against Meta Platforms.

Filed in federal court in California, the suit alleges that Meta not only fails to keep young children off its platforms but also knowingly avoids adopting available verification tools.

The complaint states that Meta “has access to, and chooses not to use, feasible alternative age verification methods… for example, by requiring young users to submit student IDs upon registration.”

According to a less-redacted version of the filing, internal discussions show the company was aware that stronger verification would reduce under-13 usage but feared it would “impact growth.”

One internal email notes concerns about whether the goal was to “identify and remove u13 age liars… or whether we are waiting to test growth impact before committing to anything.”

The lawsuit also highlights Meta’s design choices.

Regulators allege that Instagram used “no age gate for several years” and later adopted systems that wholly rely on users to self-report their age accurately, a method the complaint describes as ineffective and easily bypassed.

Internationally, regulators are moving toward more robust, privacy-preserving approaches.

The European Commission has developed an age-verification “reference standard” that relies on anonymous cryptographic tokens.

Under this method, “the service provider only sees the functional result of the age assurance process (e.g. ‘over’ or ‘under’ the age threshold)” and receives no identifying information about the user.

Users verify their age once through a trusted third party, which then issues an anonymized token; platforms never gain access to personal data that could link identity and behavior.

The Commission describes its approach as “privacy-preserving, data-minimizing, non-traceable and interoperable.”

These differing global strategies highlight the core dilemma facing U.S. policymakers: how to balance child safety, privacy, and access.

Meta, responding to Australia’s new requirements, argued that “cutting teens off from their friends and communities isn't the answer.”

Yet governments pressing ahead with age restrictions say the priority must be protecting minors from harms that platforms have struggled to contain.

Denmark’s minister for digital affairs summarized the sentiment driving Europe’s shift: “Without proper age verification, we fail to protect children online… We must do everything we can to protect minors.”

As legal and political pressures mount, the U.S. may soon be forced to reconsider whether its longstanding minimum age of 13 remains adequate.

The convergence of global policy reforms and detailed allegations in the Meta lawsuit suggests that America’s debate over stronger age restrictions is no longer hypothetical—it is accelerating, and the regulatory landscape could shift more quickly than many expect.

What People Are Saying

Julie Inman Grant, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner said: “We think it would be unreasonable if platforms re-verified everyone’s age… Adults should not see huge changes.”

From the U.S. multistate lawsuit against Meta Platforms: According to the complaint, the states allege that Meta “knows that its social-media platforms are used by millions of kids under 13, and they unlawfully collect their personal info.”

What Happens Next

Governments worldwide are rapidly adopting stricter age limits for social media, and that momentum is pressuring the U.S. to act as its own lawsuit against Meta advances.

Australia and Malaysia are enforcing under-16 bans, Europe is rolling out privacy-preserving age-verification standards, and U.S. attorneys general argue Meta avoids tools that could keep underage children off its platforms.

Supporters say tougher rules could reduce well-documented mental-health and safety risks, while critics warn that bans may drive teens into less regulated online spaces.

As platforms begin building global age-assurance systems and courts scrutinize Meta’s practices, the U.S. will soon be forced to decide whether to raise the minimum age or mandate stronger verification, setting the stage for its most significant change to youth online policy in decades.

Request Reprint & LicensingSubmit CorrectionView Editorial & AI Guidelines