Gen Z girl looking at smartphone screen feeling upset scrolling on social media.

Mementojpeg | Moment | Getty Images

Governments around the world are making efforts to crack down on teen social media use amid mounting evidence of potential harms, but critics argue blanket bans are an ineffective quick fix.

Australia became the first country to enforce a sweeping social media ban for under-16s in December, requiring platforms like Meta’s Instagram, ByteDance’s TikTok, Alphabet’s YouTube, Elon Musk’s X, and Reddit to implement age verification measures or face penalties.

Several European countries are now looking to follow Australia’s lead, with the U.K., Spain, France, and Austria drafting their own proposals. Although a national ban in the U.S. looks unlikely, state-level legislation is underway.

It comes after Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and Threads, faced two separate defeats in trials related to child safety and social media harms in March.

A Santa Fe jury found Meta misled users about child safety on its apps. The next day, a Los Angeles jury ruled that Meta and YouTube designed platform features that contributed to a plaintiff’s mental health harms.

Meta’s stock drops almost 8% as 2 court defeats add to Zuckerberg’s recent woes

These developments are set to “unleash a lot more legislation,” Sonia Livingstone, social psychology professor and director of the London School of Economics’ Digital Futures for Children center, told CNBC.

However, Livingstone said a social media ban for teens is a slapdash solution from governments that have failed to properly police tech giants for years.

“I think the argument for a ban is an admission of failure that we cannot regulate companies, so we can only restrict children,” she said, explaining that the U.S. and Europe already have a lot of legislation in the books that isn’t being enforced.

“When are governments really going to enforce, raise the stakes on fines, ban the companies if necessary for not complying,” she added.

Enforce existing laws

Experts argue the sector has for too long escaped accountability and the rigid requirements faced by other industries.

“[Governments] should be implementing the law [and] big tech companies should be facing a slew of regulatory interventions that forbid a whole series of practices that they currently do,” Livingstone said.

She highlighted the U.K.’s Online Safety Act, which “requires safety by design” — this means features such as Snapchat’s “Quick Add” that invite teens to befriend others should be stopped, according to Livingstone.

Livingstone believes that a blanket ban wouldn’t even be under discussion if social media companies had undergone appropriate premarket testing to establish if their features are safe for their target audience.

“There are lots of areas where we have a well functioning market that requires testing to establish it meets the standards…[before products] can go into the market,” she said. “If we did that for AI and for social media, we would be in a whole different place and we’d not be having to talk about banning children from anything.”

Josh Golin, executive director at Boston-based non-profit Fairplay, told CNBC that he’d like to see “privacy and safety by design legislation rather than blanket bans” across the U.S.

This includes passing the Children and Teen Online Privacy Protection Act to put a stop to personal data-driven advertising towards children, so there’s “less financial incentive for social media companies to target and addict kids.”

Golin added that passing the Senate’s version of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) is also key to ensuring platforms are held legally responsible for design features that can cause addiction or other harms.

He added that Meta has already successfully lobbied to stop KOSA even though it passed the Senate in 2024. But, if it continues to block legislation further, Golin thinks this could see further pressure “line up behind bans because addictive and unsafe is not OK.”

A ban is ‘lazy’ and ‘unfair’

A sweeping social media ban only punishes a generation of young people who have become increasingly dependent on online means of interaction, according to Livingstone. She said bans are a “lazy” solution from governments and an “unfair” outcome for young people.

“It’s the 15 years in which we don’t let our children go outside and meet their friends. It’s the 15 years in which we stopped funding parks and youth clubs for them to meet in,” she said.

“So a ban now is to say to ‘Children, we can’t make the regulation work. We can’t update it fast enough. We haven’t built you anything else to do, but that’s just tough. We’ve terrified your parents into feeling that there’s nothing they can do, and we’re going to take you away from the service where you hoped you would feel some sociability and entertainment.”

A ‘quiet revolution’: Why young people are swapping social media for lunch dates, vinyl records and brick phones

Dr. Victoria Nash, associate professor and senior policy fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, described social media bans as an “extreme” measure that alienates young people from the benefits these platforms provide.

“We know children and young people get their news online and through apps, so you cut that off,” she said. “My view would be that I don’t think this justifies a ban. To me, what this justifies is more responsible behavior by social platforms to cut down on their most harmful features.”

She said that bans could drive young people and children to less regulated corners of the internet, which don’t have the same protections.

Many Australian teens flouted the social media ban when it first came into force in December. A BBC report found that downloads of VPNs, which hide users’ locations to avoid country-specific restrictions, increased before the ban.

Additionally, downloads of some apps that weren’t yet affected such as Lemon8, Yope and Discord also surged in the days after the law came into effect, per the report.

“I think it [a ban] certainly gets rid of all the harmful aspects, but it gets rid of the good ones too and I’m just not yet sure if that’s proportionate,” Nash added.

Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.

The post More countries weigh teen social media ban, experts warn it’s ‘lazy’ appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri testifies at a U.S. Senate hearing in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 8, 2021.

Brendan Smialowski | AFP | Getty Images

Instagram chief Adam Mosseri said Wednesday during testimony in a high-profile social media trial that he thinks there can be problematic usage of social media, but does not think it constitutes an addiction.

“I’m sure I said this, but I think it’s important to differentiate between clinical addiction and problematic use,” said Mosseri, who noted several times that he is not a medical professional.

Mosseri said that sometimes the use of the word addiction can refer to something more casually, and  noted that while he may have once said he was addicted to a Netflix show, that’s not an actual clinical addiction.

“So it’s a personal thing, but yeah, I do think it’s possible to use Instagram more than you feel good about,” Mosseri said. “Too much is relative, it’s personal.”

Mosseri testified in Los Angeles Superior Court, where the plaintiff alleges that social media platforms Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Snap misled the public about the safety of their apps while knowing certain design choices and features fostered detrimental mental health effects in young users.

Although TikTok and Snap were originally part of the case, the two companies are no longer involved after settling with a plaintiff involved in the lawsuit.

Plaintiff attorney Mark Lanier questions Adam Mosseri, the head of Meta Platforms’ Instagram, as part of a trial on what plaintiffs call “social media addiction” in children and young adults, in Los Angeles, California, U.S. Feb. 11, 2026 in a courtroom sketch.

Mona Edwards | Reuters

“The question for the jury in Los Angeles is whether Instagram was a substantial factor in the plaintiff’s mental health struggles,” a Meta spokesperson said.

The LA trial centers around a plaintiff listed as “KGM” and her mother, who allege that the tech companies designed features like infinite scroll that resulted in addictive behavior and negative mental health issues.

“The evidence will show she faced many significant, difficult challenges well before she ever used social media,” the Meta spokesperson said in a statement.

Mark Lanier, the plaintiff’s lawyer, questioned Mosseri about social media addiction and about certain choices that company executives made that resulted in alleged negative harm.

When Lanier asked Mosseri whether there’s such a thing as problematic usage of Instagram, Mosseri replied, “I think it depends on the person.”

Lanier pressed Mosseri about his role as a “decision maker” for Instagram, and if he leans toward making decisions that lead to profit before testing, or if he emphasizes testing products first to protect children.

“In general, we should be focused on the protection of minors, but I believe protecting minors over the long run is good for business and for profit,” Mosseri said.

The trial, which had opening statements Monday, is one of multiple legal cases this year that center on the safety of social media platforms and what the companies knew about potential dangers to children.

Plastic surgery digital filters

Lanier introduced an exhibit detailing a November 2019 email exchange between company executives debating whether to ban digital filters that can alter photos of people’s faces to appear as if they had plastic surgery.

Mosseri said that the company ultimately decided to not allow any digital effects that would encourage plastic surgery after debating what could be permissible given the advanced capabilities of modern-day makeup.

In the email chain, in which one subhead included the phrase “PR fire on plastic surgery,” Meta executives discussed concerns from the press and health experts on whether the digital filtering effects could lead to detrimental mental health issues.

Meta tech chief Andrew Bosworth said in the email chain that he notified CEO Mark Zuckerberg about the plastic surgery digital filter, and that the Facebook co-founder “might want to review before implementing.”

“He is concerned about whether we have good enough data that this represents real harm,” Bosworth said of Zuckerberg’s view on the project.

Former Meta executive John Hegeman said in another email related to the chain that “a blanket ban on things that can’t be done with make-up is going to limit our ability to be competitive in Asian markets (including India).”

“I’d much rather see us develop a nuanced framework for responsible use that still allows us to build the products that people clearly want and intentionally seek out,” Hegeman wrote in the email.

Mosseri said Wednesday that while he interpreted Hegeman’s comments to mean that a blanket ban of the proposed filters would hurt the company’s ability to compete in Asian markets, he didn’t think that the former Meta executive was talking about money, but rather cultural relevance.

He said that Meta doesn’t make money from its filters and instead wants to be culturally relevant so people can enjoy the platform.

Lanier then presented an email exchange between Mosseri and Meta policy executive Andy O’Connell in which the Instagram head was asked to pick one of three options before going to Zuckerberg for his executive decision on the filters.

The first option included a temporary ban on plastic surgery filters under the current policy, and then a re-evaluation when there is more definitive data on wellbeing. The option listed “pros” of mitigating well-being concerns and leading to no PR or regulatory risks, but it had the “cons” of limiting growth.

The second option would lift the ban on the plastic surgery filters while removing the effects from being recommended to Instagram users. The “cons” of that option included a still notable risk to well-being.

The third option was a lift on the ban, which would have the lowest impact to growth but the highest risk to well-being and the possibility of generating bad media attention.

Mosseri replied to the email that he preferred option 2, which Lanier noted was the choice that involved a notable risk to well-being.

“I respect your call on this and I’ll support it, but want it to just say for the record that i don’t think its the right call given the risks,” wrote Margaret Stewart, the vice president of product design and responsible innovation at Facebook, in a reply to Mosseri. Stewart supported banning the filters.

Mosseri told the courtroom repeatedly that the company ended up with a more “focused ban” that involved a subset of digital filters.

During cross-examination, Mosseri further explained that digital filters are for a minority of users who want to make posts more fun and entertaining, but that the company doesn’t make any money from the technology.

“We want to help people express themselves. But when it comes to revenue, that’s based on how many ads people see on Instagram,” Mosseri said. “I haven’t seen any data that suggests using filters drives content consumption or ads. It’s not a revenue decision.”

WATCH: New Mexico AG Raul Torrez on Meta trial.

The post Instagram head questioned about social media addiction appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Recently the Australian Senate passed a law to ban children under 16 from having social media accounts including TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X.

Matt Cardy | Getty Images News | Getty Images

Australia’s social media ban for children under the age of 16 has grabbed global attention, and governments worldwide are considering implementing similar policies, with the U.K. seen as likely to be next.

The Australian government’s Online Safety Amendment Act came into effect on December 10, and included major social media platforms, including Reddit, X, Meta’s Instagram, Alphabet’s YouTube, Bytedance’s TikTok.

The platforms were forced to implement age verification methods to ensure under-16s are unable to create an account, and the companies can face fines up to 49.5 million Australian dollars ($32 million) for not complying.

Although teenagers, tech giants, and experts have had mixed reactions since the ban came into force, governments globally are drafting bills to implement an Australia-style ban.

“This is a global issue, and governments everywhere are under pressure to respond,” Daisy Greenwell, co-founder of U.K.-based Smartphone Free Childhood, told CNBC. SFC is a grassroots campaign urging parents to delay giving children smartphones and social media access.

“We’re already seeing countries move in this direction, and as confidence builds and evidence accumulates, more will follow. No one thinks the status quo is working for children, parents, or society – and this is one of the clearest policy responses currently on the table,” Greenwell added.

Other countries that are considering an under-16s social media ban include the U.K., France, Denmark, Spain, Germany, Italy and Greece.

The U.S. is trailing behind on this front with a national ban being unlikely, however there is certainly state and local interest, according to Ravi Iyer, a managing director of the University of Southern California Marshall School’s Neely Center.

Iyer has worked closely with social psychologist Jonathon Haidt who wrote the renowned book The Anxious Generation, about the harmful impacts of social media and smartphones on children and teens.

“It’s really hard to predict Federal policy, but it is one of the few bipartisan issues left, so it certainly is possible,” Iyer said in emailed comments.

“I’m more confident at the state level and I believe we will see a few U.S. states enact such a policy in the next couple years.”

Lawmakers in California and Texas are looking at bringing in state-level bans in 2026.

But governments looking to implement such bans could face resistance from the tech giants.

Following Australia’s move, community-focused forum Reddit launched a lawsuit, arguing that the new law goes too far by restricting political discussion online. Facebook and Instagram owner Meta urged Canberra to reconsider the ban. And in a statement to users explaining how the restrictions work, Elon Musk’s X said: “It’s not our choice – it’s what the Australian law requires.”

U.K. set to vote on social media ban

Meanwhile, calls for a social media ban for under-16s in the U.K. have grown rapidly at the beginning of this year. The U.K.’s House of Lords is expected to vote this week to amend the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to include a social media ban for under-16s.

Greenwell’s SFC launched an email campaign this week, which saw more than 100,000 emails sent to local U.K. lawmakers. The SFC template email urged the government to set “reasonable, age-appropriate boundaries that protect children’s wellbeing.”

“We consistently see that the more time children spend on smartphones and social media, the worse their mental health outcomes tend to be. If these platforms are no longer available, the network effects collapse – and young people can reconnect with each other and with the real world,” Greenwell told CNBC.

This is the right age to give your child a smartphone, according to an NYU mental health researcher

U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has even backed the idea saying “we need to better protect children from social media” and that he’s studying Australia’s ban.

“All options are on the table in relation to what further protections we can put in place – whether that’s under-16s on social media or an issue I am very concerned about, under fives and screen time,” Starmer said last week.

“Children are turning up age four at reception [the first year of school] having spent far too much time on screens,” he added.

Meanwhile, U.K. health secretary Wes Streeting asked The Anxious Generation author Haidt to address his officials at an event to push for stricter limits on young people.

France is also a strong contender as it debates two bills, one backed by French President Emmanuel Macron, to prevent social media access for under 15s, France24 reported last week. France’s public health watchdog ANSES outlined that social media’s negative effects are “numerous” and well documented.

USC’s Iyer said that if a teen ban becomes a global norm, it alleviates the pressure on young people to self-police.

“One of the primary goals of the law is to change the norm, such that teens don’t feel pressure to use social media because all their friends are doing so” Iyer said.

“It’s not really a realistic choice to abstain if you feel that all your friends are using a particular platform. If we can solve that problem and the majority of teens are off of social media, we’ll have done a lot of good,” he added.

The post Who’ll next implement an Australia-style under-16s social media ban? appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher Shohei Ohtani (17) throws a pitch during the MLB game between the Philadelphia Phillies and the Los Angeles Dodgers on September 16, 2025 at Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, CA.

Brian Rothmuller | Icon Sportswire | Getty Images

Major League Baseball officially announced a new three-year media rights agreement with NBC, Netflix and ESPN on Wednesday, foreshadowing the league’s more significant TV deal to come in 2028.

The new deal stems from ESPN’s decision to opt out of its “Sunday Night Baseball” package earlier this year. ESPN struck a new deal with MLB, acquiring the rights to MLB.TV and a midweek game package. NBC Sports will take over the Sunday Night games, and Netflix will be the new home for the next three Home Run Derbies. All the deals begin with the 2026 season.

CNBC previously reported most of the details of the agreement in August.

“Our new media rights agreements with ESPN, NBCUniversal and Netflix provide us with a great opportunity to expand our reach to fans through three powerful destinations for live sports, entertainment, and marquee events,” said MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred in a statement.

Get the CNBC Sport newsletter directly to your inbox

The CNBC Sport newsletter with Alex Sherman brings you the biggest news and exclusive interviews from the worlds of sports business and media, delivered weekly to your inbox.

Subscribe here to get access today.

The new deal foreshadows MLB’s quest to raise TV revenue at the end of the 2028 season, when it will get these rights back plus existing broadcast rights from Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery.

While it’s not an exact apples-to-apples comparison, MLB had to take a haircut of about $300 million per year relative to what ESPN had been paying before opting out earlier this year. NBC is paying about $200 million a year for its new package, and Netflix is paying about $50 million annually for the Derby, CNBC reported in August. The two packages, together, roughly make up what ESPN had been paying for.

Even so, MLB has a chance to expand its reach through the new and streaming-exclusive partners.

The average ESPN Sunday Night Baseball game averaged 1.8 million viewers this past season.

The loss in revenue for the Sunday Night package suggests MLB may have to get creative with the way it carves up new packages of games in 2028 to ensure it continues to grow media revenue. In aggregate, the league is now making more in overall media revenue, but it needed to sell ESPN rights and games it hadn’t previously offered. ESPN is paying about $550 million for its new package, CNBC reported in August.

The NBA nearly tripled its national media revenue in its most recent rights deal, and the NFL is so confident it can generate a huge increase on the deal it signed in 2021 that it’s open to accelerating talks with its current media partners as early as next year, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell told CNBC in September.

New deal details

ESPN’s new deal allows it sell and distribute MLB.TV, the league’s out of market streaming service, through the ESPN app. ESPN will also receive a new 30-game midweek package of live games on ESPN’s linear networks and the ESPN app.

ESPN also will sell and distribute MLB Network and in-market games for select MLB teams via the ESPN app. Those teams are the Cleveland Guardians, San Diego Padres, Minnesota Twins, Arizona Diamondbacks and Colorado Rockies — franchises whose games have been produced and distributed by MLB after the collapse of regional sports networks that carried those teams.

NBC will now have MLB, NBA and NFL on Sunday for its broadcast network, its new cable sports channel, and its Peacock streaming service. NBC will also carry MLB’s entire Wild Card round, ranging from eight to 12 games each season. 

In addition to three years of the Home Run Derby, Netflix will own the rights to a singular game on Opening Night for the next three seasons. Netflix will also exclusively deliver all 47 games of the 2026 World Baseball Classic to its audience in Japan. 

Disclosure: NBCUniversal is the parent company of CNBC.

The post MLB announces new media rights deals for NBC, ESPN and Netflix appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Max Verstappen of the Netherlands driving the (1) Oracle Red Bull Racing RB20 leads Carlos Sainz of Spain driving (55) the Ferrari SF-24 and Lando Norris of Great Britain driving the (4) McLaren MCL38 Mercedes into turn 1 at the start during the F1 Grand Prix of Mexico at Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez

Peter Fox – Formula 1 | Formula 1 | Getty Images

Apple and Formula 1 announced a five-year media rights deal Friday that will bring every F1 race to Apple TV beginning in 2026.

Apple TV will provide coverage of all Formula 1 events, including practice, qualifying and Sprint sessions, as part of the streamer’s existing $12.99 per month subscription, which comes ad-free. Certain F1 races and all practice sessions will also be available for free in the Apple TV app throughout the season, the companies said in a statement.

It’s a different structure from Apple’s partnership with Major League Soccer. Apple TV similarly has exclusive rights to every MLS game, but at an extra cost through the MLS Season Pass.

Apple is paying about $140 million per year for the racing rights, according to people familiar with the matter. Disney’s ESPN is the incumbent media partner for the league and had been paying about $85 million per year on average, according to people familiar with that deal, who asked not to speak publicly because the details are private.

Representatives for ESPN said in a statement the network is “incredibly proud of what we and Formula 1 accomplished together in the United States and look forward to a strong finish in this final season. We wish F1 well in the future.”

F1 TV Premium, the league’s own content offering that’s popular with racing fans, will continue to be available in the U.S. but will now require an Apple TV subscription. Once a customer subscribes to Apple TV, F1 TV Premium will be included in their Apple subscription rather than as a standalone offering.

F1 on Apple TV will feature commentary from F1 TV and Sky broadcast announcers.

Get the CNBC Sport newsletter directly to your inbox

The CNBC Sport newsletter with Alex Sherman brings you the biggest news and exclusive interviews from the worlds of sports business and media, delivered weekly to your inbox.

Subscribe here to get access today.

Apple is dipping its toe into live sports but only in instances where it can acquire rights such that it can control the user experience, Senior Vice President of Services Eddy Cue told CNBC this week. Apple plans to announced additional production details and product enhancements for F1 fans in the coming months, the company said in a statement.

“We don’t have to do sports the way that they are,” Cue said at Motorsport Network’s Autosport Business Exchange NYC. “There’s plenty of people doing that, so the world doesn’t need us to do that. And so our view around it is, if we can do something unique, then we’ll do it.”

The deal builds on Apple’s relationship with F1 following “F1: The Movie,” starring Brad Pitt, which became the highest-grossing sports movie of all time at the box office this year, according to Cue.

“This is an incredibly exciting partnership for Apple and the whole of Formula 1 that will ensure we can continue to maximize our growth potential in the U.S.,” said Stefano Domenicali, Formula 1’s president and CEO, in a statement.

Disclosure: CNBC is a sponsor of the McLaren Formula 1 racing team.

The post Apple, F1 reach 5-year media deal, bringing races to Apple TV streaming appeared first on Our Story Insight.