Bill C-34, which would ban social media accounts for under-16s, is now before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which just approved plans to hold at least 16 hours of hearings starting the week of November 16th. The government’s position on the bill became clearer during several days of debate last month at the House of Commons, revealing a shift in how MPs describe the ban (it’s now euphemistically called an “exemption model”), how they defend the decision to leave dozens of key issues to future regulations (one implausibly claimed that addressing all the issues would create a 1,500 page bill), and what they think of mandated age verification (some admitted to concerns about it). The takeaway was that the ban and the uncertainty in its implementation will be difficult to defend at committee.
Post Tagged with: "age verification"
Ofcom Did the Work Canada Plans to Skip: What the UK’s Age Verification Report Reveals About the Bill C-34 Social Media Ban
The most contentious aspect of the government’s Bill C-34 social media ban for under-16s is that millions of Canadians will need mandated age verification to create social media accounts. The bill tacitly acknowledges that this raises privacy concerns, as it includes a mandatory consultation with the Privacy Commissioner and leaves the future Digital Safety Commission to set the necessary standards. But as I wrote in June, the problem is that the government plans to bring the ban into force before the Commission even exists, meaning the age verification will proceed without established standards or the privacy consultation the bill itself requires. The United Kingdom, which is pursuing a similar ban with a spring 2027 start date, has adopted the opposite approach by asking Ofcom, its regulator, to assess what effective age verification would look like before Parliament sets the rules. The resulting report, released this week, is the most candid regulatory account of a social media ban to date. Ofcom identifies four methods capable of establishing whether someone is 16 or over and it finds that each of them requires using photo ID either directly or as the backstop given the ineffectiveness of age estimation for younger users.
The Age Verification Bill That Won’t Die: How Bill S-209 Complicates the Government’s Bill C-34 Online Safety Plan
Bill C-34, the government’s Safe Social Media Act, was touted as its approach to online age verification, adding a mandated age check for social media account creation for those under-16 and age verification for under-18s for access to pornographic content, all overseen by a new Digital Safety Commission. But it now appears the government is prepared to let Bill S-209, Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne’s age verification and website-blocking bill, proceed alongside it, creating new complications with inconsistent definitions and expanded regulatory powers. Bill S-209, which I have warned about since its predecessor Bill S-210 and opposed before a Senate committee last fall, passed the Senate in April and received its first hour of second reading debate in the House of Commons last month. The Liberals previously opposed Bill S-210, citing privacy and freedom of expression concerns, but this time the government supported sending the bill to committee and the House has now referred it on division to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The shift surprised even the bill’s sponsor, and it opens the door to a two-pronged regulatory model that doubles down on age verification, features inconsistent definitions of pornography, establishes a second penalty regime, and could give the future Digital Safety Commission the power to seek website-blocking orders.
Big Money, Bigger Design Changes: What the Meta Settlement Means for Canada, Bill C-34, and the Age Verification and Privacy Risks That Remain
The proposed settlement between Meta and 51 U.S. state attorneys general, filed last week and still subject to court approval, ranks among the biggest developments in technology litigation in years, featuring both big money and big design changes. The settlement is limited to the participating states, but it is likely to have significant implications for Canadian users and for legislative initiatives such as Bill C-34. Whether Meta extends the measures voluntarily, in response to similar Canadian lawsuits, or as part of a legislated duty to act responsibly in Bill C-34, changes are likely to make their way into Canada. This post highlights key provisions of the settlement and reviews the implications for three Canadian policy concerns: legislation vs. litigation, age verification or age assurance, and privacy.
Soft Ban or Hard Verification Requirement?: Why Bill C-34’s Social Media Ban Exemption Gets the Incentives Wrong and Comes Too Late to Matter
The debate over Bill C-34’s social media ban for those under sixteen has largely focused on the impact on users, including mandated age verification for millions, the privacy risks of verification technologies, and experience elsewhere suggesting the policy is ineffective. Defenders of the ban have characterized the Canadian approach as a “soft ban” that will allow social media companies to obtain exemptions provided they meet yet-to-be-determined safety standards. This approach is said to create incentives for companies to address safety concerns and qualify for the exemption. But a closer look at the bill reveals that the approach does not work, as even “safe” services will be required to implement age verification for tens of millions of users. By the time the Digital Safety Commission has figured anything out, the services will have verified most of the country and likely lost users in the process. This is true not only for services that require significant design changes, but even those services that today would be widely acknowledged to be safe for children.
Recent Posts
Back-of-the-Napkin Cultural Policy: The Government’s $600 Million Streaming Plan Copies the CRTC Decision It Killed at More Than Double the Cost 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 282: Udbhav Tiwari on Why Signal May Exit Canada Over Bill C-22’s Encryption and Metadata Retention Rules 
From Making Web Giants Pay to Paying Media Giants: Budget 2026 Replaces the Government’s Internet Platform Strategy With $1.5 Billion in Taxpayer Dollars for Culture and News 
Has the Government Read Its Own Bill? What Three Days of House Debate Revealed About Bill C-34 Before the Committee Hearings Begin 
Surveillance By Design: Government Officials Say Lawful Access Could Reach Gaming Platforms, Daycares and AI Services
