New Zealand Proposes a Social Media Ban for Children Under 16
Technology Policy

New Zealand Proposes a Social Media Ban for Children Under 16

New Zealand's government introduced a bill that would require major social networks to keep children under 16 off their platforms and assess risks to young users. Companies could face fines tied to global revenue, but the proposal lacks enough parliamentary support and cannot pass before the coming election.

NewTqnia Technology Policy Desk 3 min read
New Zealand Proposes a Social Media Ban for Children Under 16

New Zealand has introduced a bill that would make social-media companies responsible for keeping children under 16 off major platforms. The proposal reaches beyond asking users for a birthday: companies could have to estimate or verify age and report the risks their services pose to children.

The 30-second summary

  • What happened? Prime Minister Christopher Luxon unveiled an Online Safety Bill that would bar under-16s from major social networks.
  • Why does it matter? Platforms could face fines of up to 10% of global revenue and would need age checks plus child-risk assessments.
  • What is the catch? Two coalition partners oppose the proposal, opposition support is undecided, and Parliament cannot pass it before the election.

KEY NUMBER
The maximum proposed penalty is 10% of a platform's global revenue, making non-compliance potentially far more expensive than a fixed local fine.

The duty would fall on the platforms

The bill would require covered services to take reasonable steps to establish that users are at least 16. The New Zealand government's announcement says companies could use existing account information, facial age estimation, digital identity services or formal identification.

Children and parents would not be fined. The obligations would sit with services such as Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and Facebook, while messaging apps, online games and productivity-focused AI tools would be excluded under the current proposal.

Age checks create a second policy problem

Stopping a 14-year-old from opening an account requires a service to estimate or verify the age of many users, including adults. Facial estimation can be wrong, official identification reveals sensitive information, and account-history analysis asks platforms to inspect more personal data.

This is the tension inside age-gating laws: a rule intended to protect children can also expand identity checks across the wider population. The bill therefore matters as much for privacy engineering as it does for parental control.

Australia shows that enforcement is difficult

New Zealand is following a growing international movement led by Australia's under-16 restriction. But NewTqnia previously reported that 81% of surveyed Australian children still used covered platforms three months after implementation, even as account ownership declined.

That result does not prove age restrictions are useless. It does show why removing accounts, reducing use and preventing harm are three different outcomes. New Zealand's bill would need measures for each one rather than treating account closure as the final test.

Before we call it a ban

  • The bill is a proposal, not an enacted restriction, and it has not passed any of the three required parliamentary votes.
  • Two parties in the governing coalition oppose it, while the main opposition party has not committed its support.
  • Parliament will dissolve on October 1 before the election, leaving insufficient time to pass the bill in the current term.

What happens next

Luxon's National Party must either secure opposition votes or return to the proposal after the election. If the bill advances, lawmakers will need to define which platforms qualify, what counts as a reasonable age check, and how companies can verify compliance without collecting unnecessary identity data.

The decisive distinction is not whether a platform deletes millions of accounts. It is whether the law measurably reduces harmful exposure without turning every adult user into an identification subject.

Verified topics and entities

Sources and citations4 sources

Published by

N

NewTqnia Technology Policy Desk

An institutional editorial team within NewTqnia

A new version of NewTqnia is ready.