Policymakers are shifting away from voluntary self-policing toward regulatory frameworks that place affirmative obligations on platforms to protect children, with growing consensus around core themes, such as age assurance, parental controls, and data governance. However, meaningful variation exists in how these obligations are defined and enforced.
Existing compliance programs may not be scoped for the full range of emerging exposures. Most frameworks were not designed with LLMs or GenAI in mind, leaving platforms with limited regulatory guidance precisely where risks are evolving fastest. Requirements diverge significantly across jurisdictions: on age thresholds, allocation of responsibility between platforms and parents, and the degree of prescriptive versus principles-based obligations.
Beneath these regulatory gaps are broader unresolved questions about where responsibility should sit among platforms, parents, and governments, and how much autonomy young users should have. According to PwC’s Trust and Safety Outlook 2026 research, 18% of US guardians say the single most important factor in deciding whether to allow their child to use an online platform is their child’s age, maturity, and ability to use the product responsibly.
Other leading responses highlighted factors within a platform’s control, including age-appropriate design and default settings (14%), controls over who can contact or interact with their child (12%), and the platform’s developmental or educational value (11%). For platforms, the risk of being caught underprepared is real.
————————————————
Source link
