Ofcom says photo ID could gate social media for under-16s

By Sophie Lindqvist

On October 29, 2026, the United Kingdom's communications regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), said social media companies "may have to require" users to show photo identification proving they are at least 16. The photo-ID requirement would form part of the government's planned ban on social media use by people under 16, and the government expects that ban to take effect next year.

About 150,000 people aged 16 and 17 in Britain have neither a passport nor a driver's licence. That makes a document-only route incomplete for an age group the planned rules would govern.

Ofcom did not announce an immediate platform-wide mandate. Instead, it identified age-verification routes that could operate if the government requires stronger proof of age. Its statement presented options, not a final order with a compliance timetable.

What would Ofcom's photo-ID checks involve?

Ofcom identified several possible routes for companies to verify a user's age:

• Matching a passport or driver's licence against a live image.
• Estimating age through facial recognition technology (automated analysis of facial features to infer a person's age).
• Using additional identification checks for youthful-looking users when an automated estimate remains uncertain.

The regulator warned that facial age estimates can be inaccurate by "several years." That error margin may require additional checks for youthful-looking users.

For a platform, the sequence would resemble a passport-control desk: a passport or driver's licence is matched with a live image, or a live image feeds an age estimate. Each route creates a different compliance workflow, and Ofcom's warning about several-year errors may require a second review for users who appear too young. The statement did not make facial recognition the sole test.

Why does Britain's document gap matter?

That gap matters because a passport-and-licence route would leave a substantial cohort unable to use the simplest option, even though these users fall within the age band the planned rules would govern. The 150,000 figure does not mean Ofcom decided that all of those users would lose access. It shows the scale of the practical problem.

Ofcom did not prescribe a single method for resolving the gap or specify how the entire cohort would be covered. Legal advisers and compliance teams would therefore need to assess each verification route against the government's eventual requirements, including the treatment of uncertain facial estimates.

What are the arguments for and against?

The policy debate joins two questions that practitioners cannot separate: whether a check can establish age accurately and whether a workable check can reach every legitimate user.

• Supporters: Stronger age checks would better protect children from harmful online content.
• Privacy: Critics say identity verification raises privacy concerns.
• Access: Critics say the restrictions could limit access to social media.
• Enforcement: Critics question whether the restrictions can actually be enforced.

Ofcom also acknowledged that determined children can find ways around restrictions. It pointed to Australia, where many underage users continued accessing social media despite a similar ban. That example shows that formal age limits do not automatically end underage use. It does not establish how many British users would find ways around the planned rules.

What does the proposal mean for practitioners?

For counsel, the immediate task is to turn a range of options into a defensible workflow that handles uncertain estimates and legitimate users who lack either identity document without treating facial recognition as conclusive. Data-protection counsel would need to address the privacy objections identified by critics.

The immediate design question is practical: how can a platform verify age without accepting either unreliable estimates or exclusion of legitimate users? Ofcom's October 29 statement offers possible mechanisms, but no selected method, timetable or assurance that checks will prevent determined minors from bypassing them. The government's planned ban and its eventual terms would determine the final legal duties.