Meta Under Fire: Is America About to Kick Kids Off Social Media?

Around the world, governments are moving quickly to impose strict age rules on social media, and the United States may soon be forced to respond.

A mix of global policy changes and escalating U.S. litigation against Meta is bringing the idea of an under-16 social-media ban closer to serious debate than ever before.

One attorney told Newsweek that “kids, families, and schools have been paying the price for decisions Meta, Google, TikTok, and Snap made behind closed doors.”

Newsweek reached out to Meta, several state attorneys general, the Federal Trade Commission, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, and academics in Australia for comment.

Why It Matters

Foreign governments are racing ahead with tougher age restrictions, increasing pressure on U.S. regulators already focused on how Meta handles younger users.

Australia and Malaysia have both approved under-16 bans, European countries are developing privacy-preserving age-verification standards, and a multistate lawsuit argues that Meta has deliberately avoided tools that could keep younger children off its platforms. Supporters say such policies could ease mounting concerns about mental health and safety, while critics warn that forcing teens off mainstream platforms might push them into more dangerous, poorly regulated online spaces.

Together, these shifts are reshaping expectations for whether—and how—the U.S. will follow with its own rules.

What To Know

At the federal level, the only national age rule for social media comes from the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), a 1998 law that bars companies from collecting personal data from children under 13 without verifiable parental consent.

COPPA does not prohibit children under 13 from using social media. Instead, it makes platforms liable if they allow young users to sign up, collect their data, and do so without a parent’s approval.

Since most major platforms depend on data-driven advertising and do not want to manage large-scale parental consent systems, they typically set a minimum age of 13 to steer clear of COPPA’s requirements.

Yet COPPA has barely been updated since the early internet era. It does not cover teenagers aged 13 to 15, does not require age verification, and largely relies on whether platforms “knowingly” host under-13 users—an issue at the heart of the ongoing lawsuit against Meta.

The 13-Year Standard Under Strain

That long-standing 13-and-up norm is now under pressure. More countries are adopting under-16 bans and building robust age-verification systems, raising expectations that the U.S. will have to modernize rules written before today’s social media existed.

At the same time, a major multistate lawsuit claims Meta intentionally avoids strong age checks, increasing the chances that courts or Congress will move toward new, national standards beyond COPPA’s age-13 baseline.

Any strict age-verification regime in the U.S. would likely resemble tools emerging overseas, requiring more than simple self-declaration.

Platforms could be pushed to use third-party age-assurance services, government-issued IDs or video-selfie checks, or privacy-preserving “age tokens” that confirm whether a user is above or below a certain age without revealing full identity.

A Global Push Toward Stricter Age Checks

Australia currently offers the clearest example. Under a new law taking effect on December 10, 2025, age-restricted social platforms must “take reasonable steps to prevent Australian under 16s from having accounts.”

Violations can bring penalties of up to A$49.5 million, and companies are required to adopt age-assurance tools.

The change reflects worries about the mental-health impact of heavy social-media use. Clinical psychologist Danielle Einstein, who backs the ban, told Channel News Asia that “the drivers to stay connected to social media are just too strong,” citing the pressure for validation and fear of scrutiny among adolescents.

She argued that young people are especially vulnerable “at that early high school age, where it's so important to fit in… when you're not yet secure.”

Einstein likened the measure to Australia’s school phone bans, saying: “We saw less bullying at school, better academic results for kids, and a decline in mental health care needs.”

Opponents see serious risks. Professor Amanda Third of Western Sydney University, who co-signed an open letter against the ban, said: “By evicting children from social media platforms, you take away all incentive for technology platforms to design for children… (They) will end up in spaces that are darker, less well-regulated and not designed for them.”

She warned that cutting off access could limit young people’s ability to join civic conversations, saying they use social media “to seek information, to learn new skills… and take action on the many issues that impact their lives.”

Australia is not alone. Malaysia has announced that “Malaysians below 16 will be barred from creating social media accounts starting next year,” with mandatory electronic identity checks, according to its communications minister.

Meanwhile, several European governments are working on shared frameworks for age-verification apps.

The Meta Lawsuit Intensifies U.S. Pressure

These global developments are amplifying scrutiny of U.S. policy. American teens can still join most platforms at 13, but that baseline is being challenged by a multistate lawsuit against Meta Platforms filed in federal court in California.

The suit alleges that Meta not only fails to keep young children off its platforms, but also “has access to, and chooses not to use, feasible alternative age verification methods… for example, by requiring young users to submit student IDs upon registration.”

A less-redacted version of the complaint describes internal discussions indicating that Meta knew stronger age checks would reduce under-13 usage, but worried such measures would “impact growth.”

One internal email cited in the filing references concerns about whether the goal was to “identify and remove u13 age liars… or whether we are waiting to test growth impact before committing to anything.”