UK Children's Commissioner: Online Safety Act has made 'no difference' for kids

The UK's landmark Online Safety Act (OSA) has failed to improve the digital experience for the very people it was designed to protect, according to testimony from the Children's Commissioner. Dame Rachel de Souza told the House of Lords that children report the legislation has made "absolutely no difference" to their online safety.

During her testimony, de Souza revealed that children have explicitly reported that the OSA has had no impact on their ability to access harmful content. The Commissioner expressed "fury" toward Ofcom, the regulator tasked with enforcing the act, for its refusal to share safety risk assessments submitted by tech companies. Ofcom has justified this secrecy by citing section 393(1) of the Communications Act 2003. In response, de Souza announced plans to use her statutory powers to compel the regulator to release these documents.

A focus on moderation over design

The conflict stems from a fundamental disagreement over how digital harm is managed. De Souza argued that the OSA focuses too heavily on content moderation—the removal of bad posts—rather than addressing the harmful design of the platforms themselves. She criticized Ofcom for reacting to harms after they occur rather than anticipating them, stating, "we need them to be getting ahead of the harms. And I don't think they have."

This critique comes as the UK's approach contrasts sharply with developments in the United States. While the OSA has not yet mandated structural changes to platform behavior, Meta has proposed an $18 billion settlement in the US that includes two-hour daily limits for minors and the option to opt out of algorithmic feeds.

Systemic failures in transparency

The standoff between the Children's Commissioner and Ofcom suggests a systemic failure in the UK's digital safety framework. By prioritizing technical compliance over tangible user outcomes, the regulator may be overseeing a system that is too narrow to combat modern threats, such as addictive algorithms and AI-driven harms.

Ofcom has pushed back against these claims, asserting that its regulatory actions have already led to "material improvements" in the risk assessments provided by platforms. However, without public or independent access to those assessments, the actual efficacy of these improvements remains unverifiable.

The path to enforcement

What remains to be seen is whether the Children's Commissioner can successfully force Ofcom's hand through statutory compulsion. If the risk assessments remain hidden, the gap between the regulator's claims of "material improvement" and the lived experience of children will likely widen. Observers are now watching to see if the UK government will pivot toward the more aggressive design-based restrictions seen in US proposals or continue to rely on the current moderation-centric model.