Social media safeguards: are vulnerable adults being left behind?

Social media has become an integral part of modern life, providing opportunities for communication, information sharing, social inclusion, and access to services. However, without appropriate safeguards, oversight and support, unrestricted access to social media can expose vulnerable individuals to significant risks.

In June 2026, the Government announced plans to prohibit all major social media platforms from providing services to children under 16 years. There are not, however, any similar safeguards for vulnerable adults at present.

The potential consequences of the absence of such restrictions from a local authority perspective, beyond the risk to individual wellbeing, extend to adult safeguarding responsibilities, service provision and community safety. Local authorities have a duty to promote the wellbeing of vulnerable adults but equally have a statutory duty to protect them from harm.

Until social media safeguards are properly considered and implemented at government level, moving the onus to social media providers, local authorities should expect an increase in safeguarding concerns relating to financial abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, exploitation, and/or self-neglect linked to online activity. Such safeguarding steps by local authorities will need to continue to be managed carefully, balancing safeguarding duties with the principles of empowerment, choice and autonomy, together with consideration as to the potential of an infringement upon an individual’s rights under the Human Rights Act 1998.

On 15 June 2026, the UK Government announced that it intends to introduce a ban on social media use for children under the age of 16, with the changes expected to come into force in Spring 2027 following legislation and implementation by Ofcom. The reasons cited by the government in respect of the ban relate to concerns about children’s health and wellbeing, cyberbullying and harassment online, exposure to harmful content, including self-harm, suicide and eating disorder material, online grooming and exploitation and excessive screen time and addictive platform design features.

There have been several tragic cases reported in recent years where we have seen children taking their lives as a result of online bullying and harmful content. The ban focuses on children under 16 because policymakers consider children and young people to be at greater risk of harm online and less able to recognise, assess and manage those risks independently. The Government’s stated aim is to protect children during important stages of social, emotional and cognitive development, when young people are still developing skills relating to risk assessment, impulse control, emotional regulation and critical thinking. Supporters of the ban argue that children require extra protection online while these skills are developing and while children are more susceptible to manipulation, peer pressure, harmful content and addictive platform features.

There are arguments that the planned social media ban for under 16s does not go- far enough. Questions remain about how the ban will be implemented in practice, and whether the proper weight of responsibility is being attributed to the platforms providing social media content to the world.

As a Court of Protection lawyer, I also question whether the Government should be having similar discussions in respect of vulnerable adults, where there are similar levels of vulnerability and susceptibility to online abuse in its many forms.

I have seen the devastating impact of online exposure in practice. My client lost their entire life savings prior to my involvement in their affairs, further to being targeted online. Even after the loss of every penny they owned and the devastating emotional and financial impact of the event, no amount of support and conversation with me, Social Services or the police could convince my client that their online ‘girlfriend’, to whom funds were being sent, did not in fact exist and that ‘she’ would never travel to the UK to form the relationship which was so craved.

However, this is not to suggest the same under-16 ban type approach could or should be mirrored and applied to vulnerable adults at government level. Unlike children, adults generally have legal autonomy and the right to make their own decisions, even when those decisions involve risk.

The assumption of capacity under Section 1(2) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (‘MCA’) is clear, and Section 1(4) of MCA specifically sets out the principle that an ‘unwise’ decision does not, in isolation, denote mental incapacity. In practice, local authorities and other agencies are expected to balance safeguarding vulnerable adults with human rights, personal choice, independence, capacity and consent.

Considering the rationale behind the under-16 ban in the context of vulnerable adults, the same concerns can arise where an adult has difficulty understanding or managing the online risks set out above, but the reality is that adults have different legal rights and protections. For now, the focus of local authorities must remain on individual risk assessments, rather than population-wide restrictions, according to the greater emphasis the law places in respect of adults on autonomy, capacity and individualised safeguarding measures. However, it is worth considering whether the Government could be doing more to assist local authorities and lawyers working in the Court of Protection sphere, and what exactly that additional support might look like.

Case law provides some guidance to us in practice. The case of Re A (Capacity: Social Media and Internet Use: Best Interests) [2019] EWCOP 2 remains the leading authority and is the starting point for any discussion about capacity and social media use.

In Re A, the Court of Protection held that capacity to use social media and the internet is a distinct decision, separate from capacity regarding contact with others or general care decisions. Cobb J identified the information a person must understand in order to have capacity regarding social media and internet use, including understanding that information shared online can spread beyond intended recipients, that online contacts may not be who they claim to be, that people may seek to exploit, harm or deceive users, and that privacy settings can reduce risks but cannot eliminate them.

Subsequent case law has corroborated the findings in Re A, with Re B (Capacity: Social Media: Care and Contact) [2019] EWCOP 3 developing the legal framework for assessing capacity in relation to online relationships and social media activity. More recently, in the case of C (Capacity: Social Media and Internet Use) [2020] EWCOP 73 HH, Rogers relied heavily upon the principles established in Re A and Re B. The judgment in the case of C confirmed that social media use is now recognised as a separate decision-specific area of capacity assessment.

In the case of Re AA (Capacity; Social Media and Internet Use) [2021] EWCOP 70, the local authority sought a declaration that AA lacked capacity regarding internet and social media use. Concerns existed in respect of AA and the relationships he was forming online, together with his generally risky online behaviour. In this case, the Court ultimately found that AA had capacity in relation to social media and internet use and found that monitoring his electronic devices was not in his best interests. The case of AA is important as it demonstrates that the Court will not automatically support restrictions simply because a vulnerable adult has previously engaged in risky online behaviour. Re AA also presses that capacity and best interests must be assessed individually. 

For now, the law relating to social media and vulnerable adults remains unchanged. At present local authorities are left with the unenviable task of balancing safeguarding duties, Article 8 rights, autonomy and least restrictive practice. The case of Re A should be the starting point for any discussion about capacity and social media use.

As the social media world evolves at an alarming pace, it is worth considering whether this remains workable on the ground. There is certainly cause for discussion in respect of legislative change, which thrusts the onus of responsibility onto the social media giants to improve things, for our children, our vulnerable clients and for us all.

Perhaps at this stage, when the harm to vulnerable users is so abundantly clear, it is time for governments around the world to go to the social media platforms with a clear and non-negotiable expectation – make your product safe and fix your algorithms, or we will not use it. Perhaps we should all ask ourselves whether the benefits of unencumbered social media use are really worth the risk of such life-changing harm.

Katie Mayes is a Senior Associate in the Court of Protection Team at Birketts LLP.