Recurring concern

Failure to restrict children’s access to hazardous online content

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 26 Nov 2021•Latest report 4 Nov 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in online-platform age restriction, age verification or access-control arrangements where children or vulnerable young people can access hazardous or age-inappropriate content, including inadequate content-sensitive age thresholds, absent age verification and unrestricted access to age-inappropriate material.

Not included

Excludes general harmful-content moderation or recommendation failures where the issue is not access by children or vulnerable young people through age-related controls.
Excludes neutral descriptions of online content, platform use or statutory age limits without an asserted safety deficiency.
Excludes adult access to hazardous online content where child or vulnerable-person access controls are not the material concern.
Excludes failures in clinical, educational or public-facing online information systems unless the asserted unsafe condition is children's access to hazardous online content through age-control arrangements.

Reports: 2
Individual concerns: 2
Date range: 2021–2025
Stated actions: 3

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

British Aerosol Manufacturers' Association1

Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade1

Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport1

Department for Education1

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

4 Nov2025
Manchester South
Concerns raised1
1. Age restrictions for social media platforms failing to account for hazardous content exposure
This report raised 4 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  Responsibility for online safety and responding to the incident lies with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.
  Stated by Department for Digital, Culture, Media and SportRedirects responsibility
AI-generated summary

Oliver Luke Gorman · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Oliver Luke Gorman, aged 12, died at home on 5 May 2025 after inhaling butane gas from an aerosol spray. The report raised concerns about the lack of age restrictions on some products containing butane or propane, the adequacy of warnings about inhalation risks, and social media content promoting dangerous challenges.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Age restrictions for social media platforms failing to account for hazardous content exposure
Wider context from the report
“3. Social media content and access The posting of challenges such as those listed above, and no doubt others, on social media platforms will continue to take the lives of young, impressionable and/or vulnerable children/teenagers unless the platform providers take responsibility fortheir content and/or toxic algorithms either voluntarily or through Government action. The former seems unlikely. Further the age restriction of 13 years for most social media platforms appears to have been determined in relation to data protection laws rather than of the nature of the content to which they will be exposed, again via any toxic algorithms or any searches they may make. ”
Source location
Oliver Luke Gorman · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Responsibility for online safety and responding to the incident lies with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.

Verbatim wording from the response
“I can confirm that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) leads on online safety. My colleague at the department, Minister ████████, Minister for AI and Online Safety in DSIT, is best placed to respond to you on this tragic incident, and will be writing to you regarding this within the statutory timeframe.”

Source location
Response from Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Page 1 · response
Published 5 November 2025
Open published response
26 Nov2021
Surrey
Concerns raised1
1. Failure to specifically block age-inappropriate online content accessible to pupils
This report raised 6 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 3
1. Action
  Conduct a public consultation on revised Keeping Children Safe in Education guidance, including filtering and monitoring systems.
  Stated by Department for EducationStated completed
2. Action
  Publish revised Keeping Children Safe in Education guidance following consultation.
  Stated by Department for EducationStated planned
3. Action
  Launch digital, data and technology standards covering data security, cyber security, monitoring and filtering.
  Stated by Department for EducationStated planned
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  Individual schools and their leaders are responsible for deciding appropriate filtering and monitoring systems according to local circumstances.
  Stated by Department for EducationRedirects responsibility
AI-generated summary

Frances Rose Thomas · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Frances Rose Thomas was a vulnerable teenager who, while attending Stepping Stones School, was often left without formal supervision and had unsupervised access to school electronic devices. On 25 September 2018, after accessing material at school, she went home and undertook a similar act resulting in her death. The report raised concerns about inadequate school e-security, monitoring and supervision, outdated regulatory guidance, and insufficient controls over age-inappropriate content on an online platform.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to specifically block age-inappropriate online content accessible to pupils
Wider context from the report
“3. ████████ is not a specifically blocked ████████ and not only can it be accessed by Key Stage 4 students there is encouragement to do so in some schools. However, I heard evidence that the sites Frankie accessed through ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████. Furthermore, there is inadequate independent scrutiny by ████████ to remove age inappropriate stories put on their platform. ”
Source location
Frances Rose Thomas · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 3 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Conduct a public consultation on revised Keeping Children Safe in Education guidance, including filtering and monitoring systems.

Verbatim wording from the response
“We continue to review what more we can do to support schools and colleges and see where we can strengthen the guidance further. On 11 January, we launched a public consultation on KCSIE which runs until 8 March. To help us build the evidence base, we have included a question specifically relating to filtering and monitoring systems, which asks schools if they feel able to make informed decisions on which filtering and monitoring systems your school or college should use? Following consultation, we plan to publish revised guidance later this year.”

Source location
2021-0408-Response-from-Department-for-Education_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 7 December 2021
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Publish revised Keeping Children Safe in Education guidance following consultation.

Verbatim wording from the response
“We continue to review what more we can do to support schools and colleges and see where we can strengthen the guidance further. On 11 January, we launched a public consultation on KCSIE which runs until 8 March. To help us build the evidence base, we have included a question specifically relating to filtering and monitoring systems, which asks schools if they feel able to make informed decisions on which filtering and monitoring systems your school or college should use? Following consultation, we plan to publish revised guidance later this year.”

Source location
2021-0408-Response-from-Department-for-Education_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 7 December 2021
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Launch digital, data and technology standards covering data security, cyber security, monitoring and filtering.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Furthermore, to support schools to have the appropriate safeguarding systems in place, under both child and data protection legislation, we will also be launching a set of digital, data and technology standards from Spring 2022, including standards on data and cyber security, and how to support more robust monitoring and filtering. Through consultation with the education and technology sector, we will explore options on how to ensure schools meet these standards to support system-wide safeguarding policies and how we can further support them to understand and improve their digital environments.”

Source location
2021-0408-Response-from-Department-for-Education_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 7 December 2021
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Individual schools and their leaders are responsible for deciding appropriate filtering and monitoring systems according to local circumstances.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The appropriateness of any filter and monitoring systems is rightly a matter for individual schools. The needs of individual schools will be unique to their own local circumstances. For example, a small rural school’s filtering and monitoring needs will be different to that of a large urban school and the needs of primary schools will be different to the”

Source location
2021-0408-Response-from-Department-for-Education_Published
Page 1 · response
Published 7 December 2021
Open published response

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised1

Age restrictions for social media platforms failing to account for hazardous content exposure

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

Concerns raised1

Failure to specifically block age-inappropriate online content accessible to pupils

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

Respondent positions 1

Actions described in response 3

Respondent positions 1