Marketing to children on social media: what brands need to know now about the proposed under-16 ban

Pepper co founder Beckii Flint was interviewed on BBC Radio Ulster about the proposed UK social media ban for under-16s. The debate is heating up after Sir Keir Starmer said a ban is on the table, with a vote expected in the House of Lords on proposals linked to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The UK is also watching Australia, where a ban has already been introduced and platforms have started large scale account removals.

For children’s brands and anyone marketing to families, this matters for a simple reason. If the rules change, your channels, creative, influencer plans, and safeguarding responsibilities will change too.

At Pepper, we are not commenting from the sidelines. We developed the Responsible Kidfluence Code because the biggest risk is not just what children see online, it is also how children are used in content, including commercial content.

Below is Beckii’s view from the interview, translated into practical, marketer friendly language.

‍

Why the under-16 ban conversation matters to children’s brands

Even if your brand does not target children directly, kids and teens still shape social media culture. They influence what parents buy, what trends travel, and what content performs. Any shift in access rules can trigger fast changes in:

• where audiences spend time
• what platforms will allow
• how strict age checks and ad delivery become
• the compliance burden on brands and creators

This is not just a policy story. It is a marketing operations story.

‍

1. A ban is only as good as the age checks behind it

Australia is the real world test case everyone is pointing at. The early picture is mixed. Platforms can remove huge numbers of accounts, but age assurance still has weak spots and teens are highly motivated to get around restrictions. Meanwhile, attention can shift to other apps that are not at the centre of the debate.

From a brand perspective, that creates a messy reality:

• audience targeting gets less reliable
• compliance risk increases
• you may not actually be reducing harm, just changing where it happens

‍

2. Bans do not remove risk, they can push it elsewhere

This is Beckii’s biggest caution.

If teens cannot access mainstream platforms, some will:

• find workarounds
• move to more fringe, less regulated spaces

Those spaces can be harder to moderate and more likely to host harmful content. If the goal is child safety, the policy has to be judged on outcomes, not intent.

‍

3. Mainstream platforms are imperfect, but they have some guardrails

Big platforms have flaws, but they are under pressure from UK regulation and public scrutiny. There are reporting tools, moderation systems, and compliance teams. None of this is perfect, but it is something.

If policy unintentionally drives young people away from regulated services and into less accountable ones, the overall safety picture may get worse.

‍

4. The debate is missing something huge: children are in the content, not just watching it

Most ban conversations treat children as users only. But children also show up as:

• creators with their own accounts
• faces in family content
• talent in brand campaigns

If you work with creators, influencers, or family content, you already know how common it is for children to be present on camera. A ban does not automatically solve the risks that come with that.

‍

5. The real gap for marketers: kidfluencers have weaker protections than child actors

In the UK, children in traditional media have established protections. Online, it is far less clear. That can leave big questions unanswered, like:

• what safeguarding standards apply on set, at home, or on location
• how a child’s privacy is protected long term
• what fair financial treatment looks like when a child’s presence drives value

This is exactly where children’s brands can accidentally step into reputational and ethical danger, even with good intentions.

‍

6. Pepper’s view: responsible marketing needs a standard you can actually use

That is why we created the Responsible Kidfluence Code.

It is designed to give brands, marketers, and parents a practical framework for doing this properly, including standards around:

• wellbeing and safeguarding
• privacy and digital footprint minimisation
• financial fairness when children appear in commercial content
• clearer expectations for everyone involved, not just the creator

In plain terms, it is a way to raise the bar now, rather than waiting for a scandal to force change later.

‍

7. Beckii is not anti ban, just anti quick fixes

Beckii’s view is not that social media is safe for children. It is not.

Her point is that a ban needs to be:

• workable in real life
• designed with teen behaviour in mind
• paired with protections for where children still appear online, especially in monetised content

‍

The question that should drive every policy decision

Does this actually make children safer?

If enforcement fails for some users, which it will, what is the plan for:

• the kids who bypass the rules
• the kids who move to other platforms
• the kids who remain visible online through family and brand content

That is where the conversation needs to go next.

‍

Pepper’s bottom line for children’s brands and marketers

If you market to families, kids, or teens, you cannot treat this as a political headline. You need a child safety lens built into strategy, creator selection, contracts, creative, and production.

Pepper is positioned as an authority here because we are building the standards the industry has been missing. The Responsible Kidfluence Code is our attempt to make responsible practice clear, usable, and normal.

If this topic is on your 2026 marketing plan, the safest move is to get ahead of it.