Ofcom puts tech firms above child safety, children's commissioner says

Times

24-04-2025

The children's commissioner has accused Ofcom of prioritising tech companies over the safety of young people.
Dame Rachel de Souza criticised the regulator as it unveiled the final rules that tech companies have to follow to protect children under the Online Safety Act.
De Souza, who is a statutory adviser to Ofcom under the act, said: 'I made it very clear last year that its proposals were not strong enough to protect children from the multitude of harms they are exposed to online every day.
'I am disappointed to see this code has not been significantly strengthened and seems to prioritise the business interests of technology companies over children's safety.'
She added that she would be 'urgently' raising the issue with Ofcom and calling for stronger proposals.
An Ofcom spokesperson said: 'We don't recognise this characterisation of our rules.'
From July tech platforms will have to prevent children from seeing pornography or material that promotes or encourages suicide, self-harm and eating disorders.
They will also have to reduce abusive, hateful, violent and bullying content being seen by children.
De Souza's statement echoed criticisms made by the father of Molly Russell, who took her life at 14 after viewing toxic content online.
Ian Russell said he has lost trust in Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, over online safety.
He told Times Radio: 'Peter Kyle, secretary of state. I think I've pretty much lost trust with Peter Kyle. I think he's deeply concerned. I haven't met an individual who doesn't want to make the online world safer, but his priority is to build trade and to build data centres, for example, and invest in big tech. He's almost got a conflict of interest in his brief.'
Kyle also ruled out an Australian-style social media ban for under-16s, telling BBC 5 Live he preferred to leave control of this to parents. 'Parents need to have the flexibility to parent in a way that's suitable for their children and circumstances,' he said.
Russell and his charity, the Molly Rose Foundation, believe Ofcom's rules do not go far enough in protecting children.
The foundation claims that 'little will change practically on social media sites' as a result of the new rules. The charity says this is because the regulator has built in a loophole, that platforms must only ensure they don't recommend content if they already know it's harmful. Ofcom said it disagreed with this.
The charity also says that tech platforms will not have to stop showing dangerous challenges, only that they will have to recommend them to users less often.
Content moderation proposals 'bake in the industry standard which has been found to be insufficient', it said.
Ofcom said that the foundation is 'wrong' on dangerous stunts as they must be excluded from children's feeds under the new rules.
Almudena Lara, Ofcom's child protection policy director, said the Russell family 'have gone through the most horrendous experiences that one can go, and it's right of them to be ambitious and to want more, and to want us to go far further and faster'.
However, she added: 'This is a very ambitious package that will be transformational. So I don't think that it is right to say that this is a missed opportunity and that this will not make a difference to children's online experiences.'
Other charities gave a cautious welcome to the new laws. Rani Govender, policy manager for child safety online at the NSPCC, called it a 'pivotal moment for children's safety online' but urged stronger action against encryption of private messaging.
Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, said: 'We welcome the new regulations implemented by Ofcom which are a first step towards keeping our children safe online.'
Campaigners had feared the act would be watered down as a result of trade talks with the US.
However, ministers have been adamant the child protection measures are not up for negotiation, although other elements of the act could be.
Kyle said US tech firms 'must adhere to British laws' if they are to operate in the UK and that Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, who have lobbied Donald Trump for weaker overseas regulation of their companies, must 'adapt to the different territories they have access to'.
Tech companies that fail to comply with the new rules could face fines of up to £18 million or 10 per cent of global revenue — whichever is greater — meaning potentially billions of pounds for the largest firms. In the most serious cases Ofcom can block a service in the UK or take criminal action against executives.
What is the Online Safety Act?
At least five years in the making, the act, which received royal assent in 2023, is an attempt to reduce the amount of harmful material viewed online. It has several sections, but the main ones are a crackdown on illegal content and new rules to protect children from harmful material. During the passage of the bill large parts that tried to tackle 'legal but harmful' content for adults were taken out because of freedom of speech concerns. The laws on illegal content are already in force. Ofcom has been appointed as the regulator to enforce the act.
What has Ofcom just announced?
Ofcom has published the final version of the rules to protect children which will come into force in July. The regulator has set out more than 40 practical measures for tech firms to meet to comply with their duties. They will have to prevent children from seeing pornography or material that promotes or encourages suicide, self-harm and eating disorders. They will also have to reduce abusive, hateful, violent and bullying content being seen by children. Crucially they will have to start introducing age verification to check who is under-18, which can be through AI facial age estimation, photo-ID or a credit card check.
Will any of this make a difference to social media?
It depends on who you ask. Ofcom and the government are hailing this as a watershed moment in addressing concerns about content found on platforms and search engines. Ofcom has powers to fine companies billions if they don't comply, block the service in the UK and even take criminal action against executives. The processes that Ofcom require the companies to now follow is very detailed and burdensome. Some charities like the NSPCC and Center for Countering Digital Hate have generally welcomed the codes. However, Ian Russell, the father of Molly, has expressed his disappointment at the rules, saying 'little will change practically on social media sites' as a result. In anticipation of the act, many platforms have been introducing new controls to protect children over the past six months. Ultimately a proper judgment will have to come later this year to see if companies are complying and if Ofcom is prepared to take enforcement action.
Does this affect a wider social media ban?
The act does not address such a ban which has become an issue over the past year since Australia became the first country to introduce it for under-16s. Attempts to lay the groundwork for a ban in the UK through a private members bill were watered down by ministers and Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, has all but ruled it out, considering restrictions a matter for parents.
Won't all this be watered down in US trade talks?
Ministers have been pretty adamant that the child protection measures will not be affected by the talks, so they must be quite confident they are on firm footing. However, they have been less forthright about other parts of the act. Given the Trump administration's concerns about freedom of speech regulation, that could make certain elements of the illegal harms rules vulnerable. For instance, platforms will have to remove illegal hate speech content, which could be contentious for some US companies like Meta, which have lobbied Trump about removing overseas rules that it considers to be censorship. Ofcom's future plans to require companies to take emergency measures against disinformation in situations like the Southport riot could also be affected.