Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, has publicly asserted that existing scientific evidence does not support broad bans on social media use by teenagers, placing the company squarely at the center of a widening global debate over youth wellbeing, platform accountability, and digital regulation. The statement comes as lawmakers, education authorities, and parent advocacy groups across multiple regions intensify calls for age-based restrictions or outright prohibitions on teen access to social media platforms.
In a public release, Meta said that while it recognizes concerns about the potential mental health and developmental impacts of social media, “the science does not support blanket bans on teen social media use.” According to the document:
Recently, a number of lawsuits have attempted to place the blame for teen mental health struggles squarely on social media companies. But this oversimplifies a serious issue. Clinicians and researchers find that mental health is a deeply complex and multifaceted issue, and trends regarding teens’ well-being aren’t clear-cut or universal. Narrowing the challenges faced by teens to a single factor ignores the scientific research and the many stressors impacting young people today, like academic pressure, school safety, socio-economic challenges, and substance abuse.
Social media provides important benefits for teens. It can create a sense of belonging, especially for those who might struggle to find community elsewhere. It can open opportunities that they wouldn’t have had otherwise, like helping them grow a following for their art or music pursuits, show their athletic talents to potential recruiters, or even start a small business.
The science backs this up. As well as showing that social media does not have a population-level impact on adolescent mental health, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine consensus report devotes an entire chapter to the potential benefits of social media for teens.
The company argues that:
There is also new evidence that rates of teen depression, suicidal thoughts, and behaviors in the US has begun to decline, even as social media usage increases or stays the same. According to the US Department of Health and Human Services’ National Survey of Drug Use and Health, the prevalence of major depressive episodes among 12-to-17-year-olds fell from 21% in 2021 to 15% in 2024. Serious suicidal thoughts in 12-to-17-year-olds fell from nearly 13% in 2021 to 10% in 2024.
Research from Oxford University’s Internet Institute has repeatedly shown that time spent on social media, by itself, is a poor predictor of mental health outcomes. Studies like these come as clear warning to policymakers against relying on screen-time thresholds as a regulatory shortcut. Instead, researchers emphasize how platforms are used, why teens engage with them, and what types of content and interactions dominate their experience.
In the European Union, discussions tied to the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act have opened the door for stricter youth protections, including age-verification requirements and potential national-level access limits. France and Ireland have both explored proposals aimed at restricting under-16 usage, while Australia has debated curfews and parental consent models.
In the United States, congressional hearings over the past two years have featured testimony from public health officials, whistleblowers, and academic researchers. While some lawmakers cite studies linking heavy social media use to anxiety, depression, and body image issues, others point to findings from the National Institutes of Health and the CDC indicating that adolescent mental health trends predate the rise of modern social platforms and accelerated sharply during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Australia is currently conducting the largest live experiment of its kind, implementing stricter social media rules for teenagers. This means that anyone under 16 is banned from using all the major social platforms
Meta has also drawn on work from UNICEF and the World Health Organization, both of which caution that removing teens from digital spaces entirely can have unintended consequences, including social isolation, loss of peer support, and reduced access to mental health resources. WHO research has noted that for marginalized youth, online communities often serve as critical spaces for identity formation and emotional support.
The company argues that broad bans could push young users toward darker, unregulated platforms in the corners of internet. These might be encrypted messaging apps that resist surveillance or anonymous forums with fewer safeguards, which are notorious for harassment campaigns, radicalization pipelines, conspiracy theory incubation, non-consensual content sharing, selling/distributing pirated content, financial scams, extremist propaganda and ilegal trading groups.
Similar concerns have been raised by researchers at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center and Princeton, who warn that prohibition-based approaches may reduce visibility into harmful behavior rather than eliminate it.
Instead of a complete ban, Meta has advocated for layered interventions. Citing evidence from the UK’s Safer Internet Centre and academic studies showing that digital literacy education, parental engagement, and platform-level safety design are more effective than outright restrictions. These include tools such as algorithmic transparency, default safety settings, screen-time prompts, content filtering, and age-appropriate design standards.
The scientific community itself remains divided. Meta-analyses published in journals such as JAMA Pediatrics and The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health report statistically significant but small associations between heavy social media use and negative outcomes, while stressing that these findings do not justify simple cause-and-effect conclusions. At the same time, sociological research highlights the role of digital platforms in civic engagement, creative expression, and peer connection.
Meta’s comments are likely to shape ongoing policy discussions in Europe, North America, and Asia as regulators attempt to move beyond reactive measures toward evidence-based frameworks. Towards the end, the Meta document expressed the following:
While social media might be a convenient target, if we ignore the many other factors that affect teens’ well-being, we might miss an opportunity to address root causes that could actually be more impactful, such as academic pressure, family dynamics, and school safety.