New Zealand Targets Under-16 Social Media Access
New Zealand’s government has introduced legislation that would bar children under 16 from major social media platforms, placing primary responsibility on technology companies to enforce age limits or face penalties of up to 10 per cent of their global revenue.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Education Minister Erica Stanford announced the Online Safety (Minimum Age and Child Safety Risk Assessment) Bill as a response to evidence of harm to young people. “We simply cannot accept the harm being done to a generation of New Zealand children,” Luxon said. He cited data showing that one in three children aged 13 to 17 spend at least five hours a day on social media, exposing them to harmful content, addictive design features and pressures that disrupt family life, mental health, sleep and education.
The bill requires “high-risk” platforms—including Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook, YouTube and X, to take reasonable steps to prevent under-16s from holding accounts. Acceptable methods include analysis of existing account information, facial age estimation, digital identity services and formal identification documents. Platforms cannot rely solely on self-declared ages.
The measure also covers social AI companions designed to simulate emotional or personal relationships, while excluding primarily messaging services such as WhatsApp or Discord, multiplayer games like Roblox, music and podcast platforms, professional networking sites, education and health services, and productivity-focused AI tools such as ChatGPT or Gemini.
Beyond the minimum age rule, platforms used by children under 18 must regularly conduct and report child safety risk assessments covering illegal and harmful content (including cyberbullying, grooming, self-harm material and deepfakes), advertising and behavioural profiling, and service design features such as algorithms. A new online safety regulator housed within the Department of Internal Affairs would monitor compliance, issue guidance, investigate platforms and enforce the law through a graduated system that includes formal warnings, corrective notices, injunctions, financial penalties, service restrictions and, in extreme cases, access restrictions. Significant privacy protections apply to any personal data used in age checks, with penalties for breaches.
Stanford emphasised that the legislation creates an enduring framework that can adapt to technological change and holds platforms accountable for the risks they create. “The Bill places legal obligations on platforms. No penalties are proposed for children, their parents or caregivers,” she said. The government also plans complementary education and awareness campaigns for parents, schools and young people.
Luxon acknowledged practical limits, noting that early evidence from Australia (where a comparable ban took effect in December 2025) shows minimum age requirements are already changing behaviour, even if enforcement remains incomplete. Millions of under-16 accounts have been deactivated or restricted there, yet independent evaluations indicate that more than 80 per cent of Australian under-16s continued accessing restricted platforms months later through incomplete age-assurance systems or workarounds. Australian authorities have since moved to strengthen penalties and investigatory powers.
The New Zealand proposal faces immediate political obstacles. Coalition partners ACT and New Zealand First have invoked the “agree to disagree” provision and will not support the bill. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters stated that while his party shares concerns about online harm to children, it views the measure as a “slippery slope” that could erode parental responsibility, privacy and freedoms. He described Australia’s experience as a “colossal failure” and insisted that keeping children off social media remains primarily a parental duty. ACT leader David Seymour has similarly criticised the approach as ineffective and likely to produce unwanted side effects.
National therefore needs support from the opposition Labour Party to progress the legislation. Labour has indicated conditional openness to age restrictions but has sought detailed answers on privacy impact assessments, compliance mechanisms, consultation with young people, enforcement of penalties and other operational questions before committing. With a general election scheduled for 7 November 2026, the bill is unlikely to complete its parliamentary journey before voters go to the polls. Stanford has signalled it will undergo a full select committee process.
Critics, including privacy advocates and some technology voices drawing on the Australian experience, warn that age-verification systems can be imperfect, create new data risks or drive young users toward less regulated spaces. Proponents counter that doing nothing accepts preventable harm and that shifting responsibility onto platforms – rather than solely onto families, aligns New Zealand with emerging global standards while leaving room for messaging, gaming and educational tools.
