Given the complex relationship between social media use and academic performance and well-being outcomes, many parents, educators and policymakers are acting to curtail or regulate young people’s social media use. While a range of actions could be taken, this section discusses two types of approaches that aim to foster the benefits afforded by social media use for young people while protecting them from the risks: restrictions on digital devices in schools; and dedicated laws regulating the way in which social media companies offer their services to children – defined as those aged under 18 – at the national and subnational level.
Growing up in the social media age
More jurisdictions are attempting to restrict digital devices in schools. Digital devices, particularly mobile phones, are the primary way in which young people access social media platforms. An increasing number of jurisdictions are implementing restrictions on digital device use at school, including the United Kingdom (UK Department of Education, 2024[73]) and France (Box 2). Approximately 34% of 15-year-old students in OECD Member countries surveyed in PISA in 2022 were learning in schools in which the use of mobile phones was not allowed on the premises (OECD, 2025[49]). In one study, some 30% of global education systems in 2023 had some kind of restriction or policy on smartphone use in schools within their laws or policies (UNESCO, 2023[74]).
While the impact of restrictions on digital devices at school is uncertain, there is still much support for the policy. Studies suggest limited evidence for the effectiveness of such policies (Rahali, Kidron and Livingstone, 2024[75]). However, recent polling indicates that restricting device usage in school or delaying access to social media for children (inside or outside school), has widespread support among adults (Ipsos, 2025[76]). Still, government restrictions on freedom of expression that focus on content, even if they do not favour one viewpoint over another, can harm freedom of expression. Such policies could constitute censorship in some contexts within some OECD Member countries.
In 2018, France imposed restrictions on mobile phone use during class hours in middle schools, which affects students aged 11 to 15 years. The restrictions aimed to improve academic performance and student well-being, while reducing cyberbullying and misuse of social media during the school day. In April 2025, the French government introduced a new national policy tightening these restrictions. Starting in September 2025, middle school students in France must give up their mobile phones upon arrival at school, locking them in designated areas for the entire school day. France is also considering a ban on mobile phones in high schools.
These new restrictions follow on the heels of an experiment during the 2024/25 school year. In this study, more than 32 000 students participated in trials that kept phones away from them during the school day. The government has reported that the trials resulted in positive outcomes in school climate, student concentration and general well-being. Cyberbullying and incidents related to social media have also decreased noticeably. At the same time, some school administrators have identified significant challenges in enforcing the restrictions, citing shortages related to material, finances and especially personnel to collect the phones and return them potentially every hour.
Source: Borde (2025[77]), Nous n'avons ni les moyens humains, ni matériels d'interdire le portable au collège, assure le syndicat des proviseurs, https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/education/nous-n-avons-ni-les-moyens-humains-ni-materiels-d-interdire-le-portable-au-college-bruno-bobkiewicz-snpden-unsa-5535455; French Ministry of National Education (2025[1]), Interdiction du téléphone portable dans les écoles et les collèges et pause numérique, https://www.education.gouv.fr/interdiction-du-telephone-portable-dans-les-ecoles-et-les-colleges-et-pause-numerique-455181; French Ministry of National Education (2025[78]), Pour un numérique raisonné à l'école, au collège et au lycée, https://www.education.gouv.fr/pour-un-numerique-raisonne-l-ecole-au-college-et-au-lycee-463044.
Policies to ban digital devices in schools typically find less support among young people (Anderson, Gottfried and Park, 2024[79]; Ipsos, 2025[76]). This is consistent with results from PISA 2022, where just a quarter of students across the OECD agree or strongly agree that schools should prevent students from accessing social media platforms (OECD, 2025[49]). Those students who strongly agree that schools should set up restrictions also tend to use social media intensively. This suggests these students may not be able to self-regulate their social media (OECD, 2025[49]).
Restrictions on certain types of content and outright bans on mobile devices represent two different approaches to prevent students from accessing social media and other online content. Some schools aim to control use of mobile phones by restricting some kinds of content. However, to protect freedom of expression, content-restricting laws should be narrowly tailored and clearly defined. They must also be subject to legal safeguards. Some OECD Member countries ban digital devices all together. However, OECD (2023[55]) shows that, on average across the OECD, 29% of students in schools that ban mobile phone use reported using their phone at school several times a day. An additional 21% reported using a mobile phone every day or almost every day, suggesting that enforcement is an issue.
Indeed, data on OECD 15-year-old students suggest that mobile phone bans in schools are uncorrelated with overall social media use (Figure 7). On average across OECD Member countries, young people in schools with a mobile phone ban spend as much time as students in schools without such a measure. Even after controlling for socio-economic background, mobile phone bans lead to a significant but small decrease in overall social media usage (around 30 minutes a week) and time spent using digital technologies for leisure at school (20 minutes).1 These are marginal effects, considering that, on average, young people spend almost 35 hours per week using social media (Figure 2).
Percentage of 15-year-olds in school with a mobile phone ban (left axis) and overall average weekly hours of social media use (right axis) by school mobile phone ban status, 2022
Note: See Endnote.2
Source: Calculations based on OECD (2025[49]), Programme for International Student Assessment Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html (accessed on 24 June 2025).
As young people’s activities increasingly move online, safety in digital environments becomes more important. Online safety laws, policies, regulations and practices aim to prevent, reduce and counter harms that people can experience online or that are facilitated by the Internet. Moreover, they increasingly focus on social media use and children.
Online safety also involves addressing mental health risks. Such risks are associated with online spaces, as well as with freedom from the negative effects of illegal, manipulated and deliberately misleading content online. However, defining “harmful content online” is often a challenge, given varying social, cultural and developmental contexts and limited guidance and research on age-specific harm assessments. In addition, terms like “misleading content”, “disinformation”, “misinformation” and “hate speech” are not always well defined. Some OECD Members remain concerned that such terms can be, and are, used as pretexts to promote censorship and intolerance of freedom of expression.
A range of laws provide protection for children online. Online safety-specific laws often go beyond safety to help ensure special protection for children’s data and prohibit deceptive online practices, among others. Social media services are implicated in these laws as they apply to a broad set of online services, but the laws are not specific to them (OECD, 2025[2]). In recent years, however, several laws specific to social media and the protection of children on these services have emerged. OECD (2025[2]) identified several online safety laws specific to social media. It also found provisions specific to social media directed at children, many of which have emerged at the subnational level in the United States (Box 3).
Since 2023, state legislatures in the United States have introduced a growing number of laws with social media provisions. As of February 2026, 17 of these laws have been passed, although some are subject to court injunctions.3 These measures vary in scope and approach, but several themes can be identified.
Age limits and/or parental consent for account creation: Some, but not all, of the laws set a minimum age at which a service can allow a child to open an account. Sometimes, these laws allow children to open an account even if they are below the stated minimum age if they have parental consent (e.g. in Louisiana and Nebraska). Other laws require parental consent in addition to a process for assuring age (e.g. in Georgia) or that consent be obtained for specific age groups above the minimum age (e.g. in Florida, children under age 14 cannot be offered an account at all and children aged 14‑15 need parental consent to open an account). The minimum age varies from 14 to 18.
Time limits and rules around sending notifications to child users: Utah’s law establishes that child accounts (for those aged under 18) should not have use of an “algorithmically curated” service for more than 3 hours in a 24-hour period. It also requires that a child user not be able to access the service between 22:30 and 6:30. Colorado requires that child users (those aged under 18) receive notifications on their devices if their cumulative use goes beyond more than 1 hour in a 24-hour period, or if they are using the service in the evening (22:00 to 6:00). Laws in California and New York establish rules prohibiting children (those aged under 18) from being sent notifications during school hours or overnight.
Mental health and algorithmically curated feeds: Laws in California, New York and Utah are concerned with ensuring that children (those aged under 18) are not delivered an “addictive” or “algorithmically curated feed”. However, in New York and Utah a parent can consent to a child being served such a feed. California’s law is specifically concerned with providing child users (those aged under 18) with information about risks to their mental health and to brain development associated with social media use.
Parental supervision: Both Tennessee and Texas require social media companies to provide parents with tools to supervise the account of their child (those aged under 18).
Data protection and targeted advertising: Laws in Georgia, Louisiana and Texas all have provisions to protect children’s data (those aged under 16 in Georgia and Louisiana, and those aged under 18 in Texas) and to prohibit targeted advertising to them.
Age assurance: Some, but not all, of the laws have an express requirement that a social media service establish an age assurance mechanism for meeting the respective age limits. In addition, some, but not all, of the laws pair that requirement with one that limits the use of any data collected in assuring age beyond that purpose.
Enforcement mechanisms: The laws have different enforcement mechanisms. In some cases, a state body allows for civil penalties. In other cases, the laws only provide for a private right of action; sometimes, only a parent has standing to sue.
The United States also has a law with social media provisions at the federal level – the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA).4
Source: Federal Trade Commission (1998[80]), Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA), https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule-coppa; Federal Trade Commission (2026[81]), FTC issues COPPA policy statement to incentivize the use of age verification technologies to protect children online, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/02/ftc-issues-coppa-policy-statement-incentivize-use-age-verification-technologies-protect-children; The Age Verification Providers Association (2025[82]), US state age assurance laws for social media, https://avpassociation.com/us-state-age-assurance-laws-for-social-media/; Nebraska Legislature (2025[83]), Legislative Bill 383, https://legiscan.com/NE/text/LB383/2025; OECD (2025[2]), The legal and policy landscape of age assurance online for child safety and well-being, https://doi.org/10.1787/4a1878aa-en.
At the national level, there is also growing support for strict age limits for social media use in some countries. While Australia was the first country to enact such a law (Box 4), support in other countries is gaining ground. In 2025, the UK Parliament debated a petition to introduce 16 as the minimum age to hold a social media account (UK Government and Parliament Petition, 2025[84]). In France, the National Assembly adopted a bill restricting access to social media for those aged under 15 (Tual and Morin, 2026[85]). As a final example, Norway launched a public consultation for a law to prohibit social media platforms from offering their services to those under the age of 15 years (Norwegian Government, 2025[86]).
International multistakeholder dialogues and initiatives exploring this issue have also emerged. Such initiatives involve experts from various sectors and aim to advance a holistic and principles-based approach to age assurance from a variety of regional and global perspectives. The emergence of such groups has underscored that the issue is far from settled. Among other concerns, they are examining whether parental responsibility and controls may be better in some contexts than establishing a minimum age for social media or other regulatory solutions. They are also exploring the appropriate scope for any regulations, and how best to balance protecting children with rights such as freedom of expression, and privacy and innovation. These dialogues suggest there is no “one size fits all” solution.
Moreover, consensus on a definition of “harmful content” for children continues to be challenging. The varying social, cultural and developmental contexts and the limited guidance on age-specific harm assessments reduces comparability across jurisdictions and platforms.
The multistakeholder dialogues have also focused on difficulties around enforceability and the ability for users to bypass restrictions (e.g. via false age claims, using adults’ accounts, virtual private networks (VPNs)). More research and dialogue will be needed to explore how best to manage social media use by young people. On the one hand, policy should enable young people to make the most of social media. On the other, it needs to guard against related risks in ways that protect freedom of expression, privacy rights, innovation and fair competition.
In late 2024, the Australian parliament passed the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act. The legislation took effect on 10 December 2025 and requires “age-restricted social media platforms” to take reasonable steps to prevent children and young people under the age of 16 years in Australia from creating or maintaining social media accounts. In the first half of December, 4.7 million accounts were reportedly removed (Australian eSafety Commissioner, 2026[4]). The Australian eSafety Commissioner (eSafety) is further considering a range of insights to assess platforms’ compliance, including ongoing information-gathering notices, stakeholder engagement, public submissions and research. An independent statutory review will be initiated within two years of the legislation taking effect.
The burden of compliance lies with social media platforms. No penalties are foreseen for young people gaining access to social media, or parents and educators who may provide such access. Although circumvention strategies exist (VPN use, age misrepresentation, proxy access), the law is part of a wider strategy aimed at protecting children from exposure to harm and to safeguard their health and well-being.
Age-restricted social media platforms are those with a sole or significant purpose of enabling online social interaction between two or more users. They allow users to link to or interact with one another, and to post material. The Act further provides discretion to the Minister for Communications to expressly exclude or include services. Major social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, X (formerly Twitter) and YouTube, will be included in the minimum age obligation. However, online gaming and standalone messaging applications have been excluded under legislative rules issued by the Minister in July 2025.
Australia’s eSafety has published the Social Media Minimum Age Regulatory Guidance (“the Guidance”) on reasonable steps that social media platforms must take to comply with the new law. Stakeholder consultation began in June 2025, engaging technology industry, civil society, academia, nongovernment actors, parents and carers. Providers are expected to implement reliable, accurate and robust age assurance methods. These should accurately detect and deactivate underage accounts, while protecting user privacy and complying with privacy laws. For this reason, age assurance methods should be periodically tested and audited.
In addition, age assurance needs to be designed with clear and accessible information about how age is verified. Users should also be allowed to make complaints and seek review for fairness. Lastly, the Guidance underscores the importance of investment in technological tools and research, including artificial intelligence to improve detection and prevention of underage accounts. Documentation is required to demonstrate compliance, covering evaluation processes such as testing, audits and improvements over time.
Source: Australian Government (2024[3]), Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act, https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2024A00127/asmade/text; Australian eSafety Commissioner (2025[87]), Social Media Minimum Age Regulatory Guidance, https://www.esafety.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-09/eSafety-SMMA-Regulatory-Guidance.pdf?v=1759432170564; Australian eSafety Commissioner (2026[4]); Platforms restrict access to 4.7 million under-16 accounts across Australia, https://www.esafety.gov.au/newsroom/media-releases/platforms-restrict-access-to-47-million-under-16-accounts-across-australia; Australian eSafety Commissioner (2026[88]), Social media age restrictions, https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions.
← 1. Based on the Ordinary Least Squares regression model, controlling for the socio-economic background (national percentile of PISA ESCS index) and sex. Standard errors are clustered at the school level to account for intra-school correlation.
← 2. A question whether the use of [cell phones] is not allowed on the school premises was asked in the school questionnaire:15-year-old students were asked, “During a typical weekend day [/weekday], how much time do you spend doing the following leisure activities?”, where two responses were: “Browse social networks (e.g. <Instagram®>, <Facebook®>)”; and “Communicate and share digital content on social networks or any communication platform (e.g. <Facebook®>, <Instagram®>, <Twitter®>, emails, chat)”. The weekly average was calculated assuming five weekdays and two weekend days. The time spent on social media is calculated as a sum of the two variables using range midpoints and assuming eight hours for the upper limit (“More than 7 hours”). Although the items were measured through separate sub-questions, the activities could be performed simultaneously, and their aggregates should be interpreted with caution. OECD average does not include Canada, Colombia, France, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway or Portugal.
← 3. As of January 2026, many of these laws (including those of Louisiana, Texas, Florida, Tennessee and California) were being challenged across 8 (out of 13) federal appellate court circuits, including for allegedly violating First Amendment and freedom of expression rights.
← 4. The Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA) defines a child as any person under the age of 13. It requires that websites and online services obtain verified parental consent for processing a child’s data and that they put in place specific protections when processing children’s data. A website or online service that is either directed at a child or has actual knowledge that a child is accessing its service, and fails to meet these requirements, will be in violation of COPPA. In February 2026, the Federal Trade Commission declared it will not bring a COPPA violation action against general or mixed audience sites and services that collect, use or disclose personal information without first obtaining verifiable parental consent if it is for the sole purpose of determining a user’s age.