Your Daily Broadsheet!

Default overnight curfews and addictive features to be switched off automatically to protect 16 and 17-year-olds on social media

Nighttime curfews to be set by default and features that get teens hooked onto social media to be automatically switched off for 16- and 17-year-olds Measures look to protect the next generation, ensuring that when kids turn 16, they don't face a cliff edge of being exposed to the most addictive features online.

Features that can keep users scrolling for longer - such as videos that automatically play one after another and feeds that continually serve up personalised content - will also be switched off by default for older teenagers.

The measures follow a first-of-its-kind government pilot involving more than 300 teenagers and parents across the UK, with families reporting that overnight curfews quickly became part of their routine and helped improve sleep and concentration.

Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said: 

Our consultation provided a clear message from parents and teenagers alike - even as young people gain greater independence at 16, they should still be protected from the most addictive online features that can have a harmful impact on their wellbeing.

These measures will be crucial in helping young people get the sleep they need, focus on school and college, and spend more quality time with family and friends, all of which are fundamental to building a happy, healthy and fulfilling adult life.

Alongside these protections, the government will publish new guidance for children, parents and guardians on how to use AI safely and confidently by expanding the Kids Online Safety Hub.

The first set of regulations on the social media restrictions will be laid before Parliament by the end of this year, with measures expected to come into force in spring 2027, alongside robust implementation and enforcement.

The EU's highest court has ruled that publishers who use state-of-the-art geo-blocking are not liable for copyright infringement, even when users bypass their restrictions with a VPN. The ruling, which was handed down in the landmark copyright battle involving digital copies of the iconic Anne Frank diary, also shields VPN providers from liability.

While the diary's importance is universally recognized, the accessibility of its digital manuscripts has been at the centre of a Dutch copyright battle that eventually made its way to the Court of Justice of the European Union ( CJEU ).

The legal dispute was triggered by differences in copyright protection terms in the EU. Parts of Anne Franks manuscripts remain protected in the Netherlands until 2037, while the same material entered the public domain in Belgium and many other EU member states years ago.

To navigate these conflicting laws, the Dutch Anne Frank Stichting published a scholarly edition online using state-of-the-art geo-blocking to prevent Dutch residents from accessing the site. Visitors from the Netherlands and other countries where the work is protected are met with a clear message, informing them about these access restrictions:

The scholarly edition of the Anne Frank manuscripts cannot be made available in all countries, due to copyright considerations=

Despite these blocking measures, the Swiss-based Anne Frank Fonds was not pleased. The Fonds essentially argued that if a block isn't 100% bypass-proof, the content shouldnt be online at all.

The Dutch lower court dismissed this argument, stating the defendants had taken reasonable measures to prevent access from the Netherlands. The Fonds appealed, without result, and the case is now heading back to the Dutch Supreme Court, which referred several questions to the EUs top court to decide the fate of VPN neutrality and the sufficiency of geo-blocking.

In January, Advocate General Rantos published his opinion concluding that geo-blocking is a sufficient measure and that VPN providers are neutral intermediaries. That opinion was not binding, but it set the tone for what followed.

Last week, the CJEUs Second Chamber delivered its final judgment. The Court ruled that a work thats in the public domain in some EU member states, but still under copyright in another, can be published on a geo-blocked website without being considered an infringing communication to the public in the protected country.

The Court recognized that geo-blocking can be circumvented with a VPN, but that is not the decisive factor. If a publisher specifically chose to use a state-of-the-art geo-blocking to block visitors from a specific country, it is clear that these people are not the intended audience.

The Court also rejected the idea that publishers should be required to use stricter access controls, such as subscriptions or login requirements. Imposing those measures would disproportionately restrict free access for users in public-domain countries.

VPN providers are also not liable if they are used to bypass state-of-the-art geo-blocking measures. The EUs top court sees VPN providers as neutral intermediaries, referring to previous rulings where YouTube and Uploaded were not held liable for pirating users. As an intermediary, a VPN itself simply acts as a secure, neutral routing tool thats not communicating anything to the public.

This conclusion is significant. It effectively confirms that the EUs highest court does not see VPN providers as copyright infringers simply because their technology enables users to bypass geographical restrictions. The Broader Fallout

Ofcom writes in a press release:

Ofcom has opened new investigations into the providers of pimpbunny.com and kemono.cr. Our investigations will examine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the providers have failed, or are failing, to comply with these duties under the Online Safety Act.

We have prioritised action against these providers based on the risk of harm posed by the services they operate. We have taken particular account of their user numbers, including where we have seen significant increases in their user traffic since age-check laws came into force last summer.

Separately, we have published our provisional decision into fapello.com, setting out that we have reasonable grounds to believe the provider of the service is in breach of their duties under the Online Safety Act. Fapello now has the opportunity to make representations to Ofcom, which will be carefully considered before we reach a final decision.

And finally, we are announcing an expansion to our ongoing investigation into the provider of xgroovy to determine whether they have also failed to adequately respond to Ofcom's formal requests for information.

Kemono.cr seems more of an archive of adult graphic art than porn but it does carry porn advertising.

pimpbunny.com is a not particularly expensive tube site but maybe it has particularly wound up the censors as it includes a nudify service

Apple is introducing ID/age checks for all iPhone and iPad users in the UK.

Once UK users accept the latest iOS 26.4 software update, they will be asked to verify their age to access age-restricted features and services. Onlly if they perform an ID check will their account will be configured to enable age-appropriate services.

If they choose not to, web content filters will be turned on automatically.

Apples support documentation on the change says that, depending on your country or region, different options might be available to confirm that yo'ure an adult. Potential options include using a credit card to verify age, using existing Apple account information, or uploading an identity document for age verification.

Privacy groups have been rightfully appalled; the BBC quotes Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch , who says the measure is more like ransomware.