A few days ago, the government announced a national consultation on children’s use of technology, including social media age limits and stronger backing for smartphone free schools. This is the biggest move so far to safeguard children and builds on the UK Online Safety Act. It also suggests a ban on social media for under-16s might be in the pipeline, following the Australian government’s lead in late 2025.

While this will open a new stream of debate on human rights and free speech, it will be music to the ears of many parents across the country who are navigating the risk on a daily basis, which has only grown with the increased adoption of AI.

While governments and schools clearly have a significant role to play as the safe-guarding stakes rise, what is interesting to me as a marketeer is how some international brands and private companies are taking things into their own hands.

A particularly interesting example is Roblox, a video game with more than 85 million monthly users. They were proactive in making changes under no government pressure – the developer decided users should not be able to chat with players they deem too old or young.

The age groups are under-nine, nine-12, 13-15, 16-17, 18-20 and 21+. The clearest reason for this is to prevent adults interacting with children, however, it is also to prevent bullying across varying age brackets e.g. 12-year-olds irritating seven-year-olds, and even groups of children harassing older players. Roblox is an escape for many; the last thing they want is being irritated.

Yubo is another example of pro-activity. Yubo is a social networking app designed for users to make new friends and they impressively spotted a potential issue before it could become a real one. In 2019 they introduced an age-verification system; banning under-13s entirely, alongside bans on sexually explicit content and fake profiles. The use of both human and AI age verification tools has successfully checked more than 22 million accounts. Its success does beg the question why others didn’t follow suit more promptly.

Increased online age-gating has also, unsurprisingly, created a market solely focused on this. Age-gating tools such as Yoti, Veriff and Onfido (among others) check ages through facial age estimation, user selfies, ID document scanning, credit card checks and more. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say I’m unfamiliar with these brand names – they are unknown brands entrusted with highly sensitive data, and consequently often met with apprehension. Perhaps surprisingly, this scepticism provides a golden opportunity – if they deliver robust and trustworthy age-gating solutions, they can build strong, long-term relationships based on significant levels of trust.

How effective will age-gating really be?

Assessing the effectiveness of this age-gating will take years. Long-term studies will measure the effectiveness of both government and private companies’ age-gating tools and techniques. But will this be reliable?

Unfortunately, there are very easy ways to circumvent these age-gating measures. Australian teens can use VPNs or pictures of their parents to create social media accounts. Those seeking adult content can do the same (note: VPN app downloads increased 1,800% in the UK once the Online Safety Act came into effect).

Despite these workarounds, tools like Yoti, Veriff and Onfido add a potentially irritating hurdle. As time passes, these tools will improve, and make circumvention more difficult. Ideally, this progression will lead to a point where accessing harmful or inappropriate content becomes so challenging and time-consuming that it effectively deters the wrong audiences.

How does this impact brands?

Non-compliance can result in significant fines and potential nationwide bans, however, it is the reputational damage that may be most impactful. Non-compliance or falling short of standards is a clear demonstration of brands prioritising profit over user wellbeing and safety. Many (both social media platforms and governments) will be watching Australia with keen eyes to judge the effectiveness of the sweeping under-16 social media ban.

However, I’d like to highlight that this presents a great opportunity for brands. Taking a proactive approach in age-gating demonstrates they truly care about their customers’ safety and wellbeing, they have the chance to build trust and strong relationships with existing and potential users and reduce parental concern. Gen Z and Gen Alpha pay close attention to online brands behaviours, they have greater trust in considerate and transparent brands, but can quickly become suspicious if any inauthenticity is detected.

The real question is, will companies decide to get ahead of the potential age-gating issues and build trust through genuine age-gating pro-activity, or risk reputational harm by reacting too late?

Barny Purvis is research manager at Simpson Carpenter