Starmer's under-16 social media ban — and what it means for our industry

This morning, the Prime Minister announced that under-16s will be banned from accessing the major social media platforms — TikTok, Instagram, Threads, Facebook, X, YouTube, Snapchat and Reddit — following Australia's lead.

The headline debate is, rightly, about child safety, mental health and parental control. But for those of us in private investigation and process serving, there are quieter implications worth thinking about.

1. Age verification will reshape the digital landscape — for everyone.You can't keep under-16s off a platform without verifying the age of every user. That means more identity checks, more documents uploaded, more verification data sitting with platforms and third-party providers. For investigators, that has two sides — potentially more data points exist somewhere, but platforms will tighten access to them in response.

2. Skip tracing relies on digital footprints that may no longer be built.A generation that doesn't use mainstream social media from 11 to 16 is a generation with a thinner public digital trail by the time they're 25, 30, 40. The OSINT toolkit we lean on today might not look the same in ten years?

3. Displacement is a real concern — and a real workload.Critics of the ban, including the Molly Rose Foundation, have warned that children will simply move to less-regulated corners of the internet. For investigators working welfare, safeguarding, family law or online harm cases, that means tracking activity across platforms that are harder to monitor, and harder to evidence in court.

4. Process servers should expect questions about minors.Service on minors already has its own rules. As public awareness of "what kids should and shouldn't be on" rises, we may see more queries from solicitors and clients about digital evidence involving children — and a higher bar for how it's gathered.

Whatever your view on the ban itself, the ground that professional investigators are working on is shifting again.