New Zealand has moved ahead with legislation aimed at preventing children under the age of 16 from accessing major social media platforms, joining a growing international effort to impose stronger safeguards on young people in the digital environment.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s government has introduced a proposed law that would require social media companies to take reasonable steps to ensure that users are at least 16 years old. The move reflects increasing concern among policymakers about the impact of social media on children’s mental health, sleep, education, family relationships and exposure to harmful online content.

The proposed legislation would place the responsibility for enforcing the age restriction primarily on social media companies rather than on children or their parents. Platforms that fail to meet their obligations could face substantial financial penalties, potentially reaching as much as 10% of their global revenue.

Government cites growing concerns over children’s online lives

The New Zealand government says the proposed restriction is intended to respond to the increasing amount of time young people spend on social media and the risks associated with prolonged exposure to online platforms.

According to government figures cited in the debate, a significant number of teenagers are spending several hours each day on social media. Officials have expressed concern that excessive use can interfere with sleep, education, family interaction and overall wellbeing.

The government has also highlighted concerns about children encountering inappropriate or harmful material online, including content that can contribute to anxiety, social pressure and other forms of emotional distress.

Luxon has argued that the country cannot ignore the potential harm being experienced by young people and that technology companies should take greater responsibility for the environments they provide.

The proposal is therefore being presented as a child-safety measure rather than simply a restriction on internet access.

Social media companies would have to verify users’ ages

Under the proposed legislation, major social media platforms would be required to take reasonable measures to establish whether their users are above the age of 16.

The precise technology and procedures for age verification would be determined as the legislation and regulations develop. Possible approaches include examining information already connected to an account, using facial age-estimation technology or relying on digital identity documents.

The requirement is expected to apply to major platforms that allow users to create profiles, communicate with others and share content.

Services such as Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and Facebook are among the major platforms expected to be affected by the proposed restrictions.

However, the proposal is not intended to cover every form of online communication. Certain messaging services, gaming platforms and productivity-focused digital tools would be treated differently under the proposed framework.

Companies could face major financial penalties

One of the most significant elements of the proposal is the size of the potential penalties for companies that fail to comply.

Social media platforms could face fines of up to 10% of their global revenue if they do not fulfil their responsibilities under the proposed system.

The government believes that significant penalties are necessary to ensure that technology companies take the age restriction seriously and invest in systems capable of preventing children under 16 from maintaining accounts on restricted platforms.

Importantly, the proposed legislation does not seek to impose fines on children who attempt to use social media despite the restriction. Parents would also not face direct penalties simply because their children circumvented the age limit.

This approach places the legal obligation largely on the companies operating the platforms.

Political opposition creates uncertainty

Despite the government’s decision to proceed, the legislation faces a complicated political path.

Two coalition partners, ACT and New Zealand First, have opposed the proposal. Critics within the political system have questioned whether an outright age restriction would be effective and whether government intervention is the best way to address problems associated with social media.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has argued that parents should retain primary responsibility for deciding when their children are ready to use social media. He has also pointed to Australia’s experience with similar restrictions and questioned whether such measures can effectively prevent young people from accessing online platforms.

ACT leader David Seymour has likewise raised concerns about the practicality and effectiveness of the proposed legislation.

The opposition Labour Party’s position became particularly important because its support could determine whether the proposal has sufficient backing to move forward. Labour has subsequently indicated support for an under-16 social media ban, although the legislation’s future still depends on the parliamentary process and its final form.

The political debate demonstrates that there is broad concern about children’s online safety, but considerable disagreement about the most effective way to address it.

Privacy concerns surround age verification

Age verification is likely to become one of the most controversial aspects of the proposal.

To determine whether a person is over 16, platforms could potentially require users to provide additional information or use technologies capable of estimating their age.

Privacy advocates have warned that such systems could create new risks if companies collect, store or process sensitive personal information. Facial age estimation, digital identification and other verification technologies could require users to provide data they would not otherwise need to share with a social media platform.

There are also concerns about the accuracy of automated age-estimation systems. If technology incorrectly determines that an adult is under 16, that person could potentially be prevented from using a service. Conversely, inaccurate systems could allow some younger users to bypass the restrictions.

The government will therefore face pressure to ensure that the proposed system protects children without unnecessarily compromising the privacy of the wider population.

Enforcement could prove difficult

One of the biggest challenges will be ensuring that the restrictions work in practice.

Teenagers who are determined to access social media could attempt to circumvent age controls by entering false information, using another person’s account or finding alternative methods of accessing restricted services.

Technology-savvy users could also attempt to exploit weaknesses in age-verification systems.

The government acknowledges that no system is likely to be completely effective. Nevertheless, officials argue that even an imperfect restriction could reduce the number of children exposed to social media platforms and potentially limit some of the harms associated with excessive or unsupervised use.

Critics counter that determined teenagers may simply find alternative ways to access social media, potentially pushing them towards less regulated online spaces.

New Zealand follows Australia’s lead

New Zealand’s proposal comes after Australia introduced a landmark minimum-age regime for social media users.

Australia’s policy has become an important reference point for governments considering similar measures. The experience has also generated debate about enforcement, compliance, privacy and whether age restrictions actually reduce the amount of time young people spend online.

Other countries have also been examining stronger restrictions on children’s access to social media, reflecting a broader shift towards treating online platforms as environments requiring greater safeguards for minors.

New Zealand’s decision places the country within this expanding international movement.

The debate over parental responsibility

The proposed ban has also revived a fundamental question: who should be responsible for protecting children online?

Supporters say parents should not be expected to compete alone with technology companies whose platforms are designed to keep users engaged. They argue that social media businesses have the resources and technological capabilities to implement stronger protections and should therefore carry a significant share of the responsibility.

Opponents argue that families should have greater control over decisions involving their children. They believe parents are better positioned to assess a child’s maturity, circumstances and individual needs than a universal government-imposed age threshold.

The debate is therefore not simply about social media. It is also about the limits of government regulation, corporate responsibility and parental authority in an increasingly digital society.

A major test for digital regulation

If enacted, New Zealand’s proposed legislation would represent a significant step in regulating social media access for children.

Its success, however, would depend on several factors, including the reliability of age-verification technology, the willingness of technology companies to comply, the ability of regulators to enforce the rules and the extent to which young people attempt to circumvent the restrictions.

The policy could also influence future legislation in other countries. If New Zealand demonstrates that an age-based approach can meaningfully reduce children’s exposure to harmful online environments, other governments may be encouraged to adopt similar measures. If enforcement proves ineffective or creates significant privacy problems, policymakers may instead look towards alternative forms of regulation.

For now, the proposal marks a major development in New Zealand’s approach to children’s digital safety. The government is seeking to shift greater responsibility towards social media companies while confronting a difficult question facing policymakers around the world: how to protect young people online without creating new problems involving privacy, access and enforcement.