The Dangers of Pre-Determined Consultation: Lessons from the UK Teen Tech Debate

The UK government’s January 2026 consultation on children’s smartphone and social media use presents a textbook case of the risks inherent in narrowing consultation scope before hearing from stakeholders. Rather than an open call for evidence, ministers have presented a predetermined menu: should social media be banned under 16? Should overnight curfews be imposed? Should ‘addictive’ features be restricted? Whilst framed as a national conversation, this approach raises fundamental questions about credibility, inclusivity and the legitimacy of any resulting policy.

The Legitimacy Problem

Best practice holds that consultations should engage the public whilst proposals remain at a formative stage. By presenting a ready-made shortlist of policy options, government risks appearing to predetermine outcomes. When people sense a consultation merely confirms decisions already made, it becomes a token exercise.

The political context amplifies these concerns. Opposition MPs have questioned whether the consultation serves as cover to avoid immediate decisions. If even lawmakers perceive the process as political theatre, public trust inevitably suffers. A broad, open consultation enhances legitimacy by demonstrating that all perspectives were welcomed. Narrowing the scope prematurely falls short of the transparent standard expected in modern policymaking.

Excluding Alternative Solutions

Limiting consultation scope inevitably excludes alternative approaches. By focusing on restrictions (bans, age limits, curfews, design tweaks), the government risks shutting out discussion of preventative or educational measures. The National Children’s Bureau has warned against ‘relying on blunt restrictions’, noting that evidence doesn’t show bans address root causes of harm and could prove ‘inequitable and ineffective’.

This narrowing undermines participation. Citizens whose views aren’t reflected in official options may simply opt out, believing their ideas aren’t being sought. There’s also a psychological effect: presenting only certain choices signals that ideas outside that range are off-limits or already rejected. Some parents or experts favour empowerment over prohibition, teaching resilience online rather than banning platforms, yet find the consultation geared towards the latter. Meanwhile, a coalition of bereaved parents, has urged the government to back a ban, saying it ‘sends an important and unambiguous message that social media is not appropriate for children under 16’.

A consultation’s strength lies in canvassing diverse viewpoints; a tightly scoped one risks becoming an echo chamber of conveners’ preferences.

The Framing Effect

Beyond which options appear on the list, how consultation is framed profoundly shapes responses. Government messaging has emphasised certain outcomes, particularly the idea of social media age bans whilst highlighting harms of ‘endless scrolling’. Prime Minister Keir Starmer himself proclaimed that ‘no option is off the table’, even as he warned of youngsters being pulled into ‘a world of endless scrolling, anxiety and comparison’. Such rhetoric may predispose the public towards stricter measures.

If questions ask ‘what should the minimum age be: 13, 14, 15 or 16?’ the debate becomes not whether to raise the age, but by how much. Unless a ‘keep as is’ option is provided, respondents opposed to raising limits might be forced into picking the least-bad option. This kind of closed questioning biases results by design.

A robust consultation framework must allow such warnings to be voiced and heard, rather than obscuring them with one-directional questioning.

Policy Robustness and Legal Defensibility

How consultation is conducted has ripple effects long after responses are analysed. A process perceived as superficial gives critics ammunition. More critically, a flawed consultation opens the door to judicial review. UK courts require consultations be conducted fairly, with decision-makers maintaining open minds.

If the government proceeds despite overwhelming evidence of feasibility issues presented during consultation, affected parties might claim the outcome was irrational. To defend proportionality under human rights law, the government must show it examined alternatives and chose the least restrictive effective measure [UK Supreme Court in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39].

Policies born of narrow engagement may face lower compliance and higher political risk in the future. We believe that vigorous consultation with diverse input identifies pitfalls early.

Implications for Practice

This case illustrates the tension between decisive/popular policymaking and inclusive public engagement. Laying out concrete proposals can focus debate and signal resolve. Doing so too early and too tightly, however, saps legitimacy and alienates those who think outside offered choices.

Stakeholders across the spectrum bring valuable insights. Parents, children, experts and industry players each risk feeling marginalised if the process doesn’t accommodate their perspectives. The Royal College of General Practitioners welcomed the consultation as ‘a sensible approach’ but stopped short of endorsing any single option, emphasising that solutions must be preventive, child-centred and involve ‘system-level change’.

Any policies emerging from this consultation will only be as strong as the process that forged them. If government listens openly, even beyond its initial shortlist, it stands to gain richer evidence and broader support. If the path was narrowly set from the start, the result may carry an aura of inevitability but lack the resilience of consensus.

For a policy area as sensitive and far-reaching as children’s digital lives, the process must invite trust, not suspicion. Protecting children online is a goal best served by bringing society along through genuine dialogue. A truly inclusive approach is what builds lasting solutions that can withstand scrutiny, challenge and the test of time.

---

---

How tCI Can Help

Quality Assurance
Independent review at critical stages, from evidence protocol design through to final reporting. Our seven stage QA process ensures your approach to qualitative data meets legal and good practice standards, assessing analysis methods, interpretation fairness, and compliance with Gunning principles, PSED and ICO requirements. Gives you confidence your evidence will stand up to scrutiny.

Early Assurance
Snapshot review during planning to Sense Check your evidence framework, codebook design and proportionality rationale before fieldwork begins. Helps you avoid costly missteps and strengthens your approach from the start.

Charter Workshops
Practical, interactive half day session introducing teams to good consultation principles. Grounded in the Consultation Charter and Gunning Principles, participants learn through expert input, case studies and group discussion. Build consistent approaches to engagement that are fair, transparent and defensible. Delivered online or in person, tailored to your sector.

Whether you’re preparing for a high stakes service change or building defensible evidence for complex decisions, we can help.

Contact tCI: hello@consultationinstitute.org