Recipient

Snap Inc.

First report 13 Oct 2022•Latest report 13 Oct 2022

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Company. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports: 1
Published responses: 100%
Concerns addressed: 3
Stated actions: 8

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

100%published responses found

8stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Snap Inc. linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

13 Oct2022
North London
Concerns raised7
1. Lack of separation between adult and child platform areas
2. Use of algorithms to provide content together with adverts
3. Lack of parental, guardian or carer access to material viewed by a child
1. Lack of age verification at online platform sign-up
2. Lack of parental, guardian or carer control over material viewed by a child
3. Failure to control online content so that it is age specific
4. Failure to separately link a child's account to a parent, guardian or carer's account for monitoring
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 2
1. Action
  Continue working with governments, regulators and industry partners to identify proportionate, scalable long-term age-assurance solutions.
  Stated in progress
2. Action
  Add content controls and teen-to-parent reporting notifications to Family Centre.
  Stated planned
Respondent positions 3
1. Position
  Snap considers its moderated and curated public content architecture sufficient to limit algorithmic amplification risks.
  Existing arrangements considered sufficient
1. Position
  Comprehensive age verification should be developed through app stores, operating systems, mobile operators and hardware providers rather than solely by platforms.
  Redirects responsibility
2. Position
  Snap disputes that there is no age verification, stating users provide dates of birth and under-13 registrations fail.
  Disputes the concern
AI-generated summary

Molly Rose Russell · 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

Molly Rose Russell, aged 14, was found having hanged herself on 21 November 2017. The report describes her depression and exposure to online content involving self-harm, suicide and other negative material, which was likely to have negatively affected her mental health and contributed to her death. Principal concerns included the lack of age verification, separation between adult and child users, age-specific content controls, algorithmic content provision and parental access or monitoring.

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. The report was sent to Snap Inc.; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of separation between adult and child platform areas
Wider context from the report
“1. There was no separation between adult and child parts of the platforms or separate platforms for children and adults. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Snap Inc.; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Use of algorithms to provide content together with adverts
Wider context from the report
“4. That algorithms were used to provide content together with adverts. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Snap Inc.; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of parental, guardian or carer access to material viewed by a child
Wider context from the report
“5. That the parent, guardian or carer did not have access, to the material being viewed or any control over that material. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Snap Inc.; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of age verification at online platform sign-up
Wider context from the report
“2. There was no age verification when signing up to the on-line platform. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Snap Inc.; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of parental, guardian or carer control over material viewed by a child
Wider context from the report
“5. That the parent, guardian or carer did not have access, to the material being viewed or any control over that material. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Snap Inc.; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to control online content so that it is age specific
Wider context from the report
“3. That the content was not controlled so as to be age specific. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Snap Inc.; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to separately link a child's account to a parent, guardian or carer's account for monitoring
Wider context from the report
“6. That the child's account was not capable of being separately linked to the parent, guardian or carer's account for monitoring. ”
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
Continue working with governments, regulators and industry partners to identify proportionate, scalable long-term age-assurance solutions.

Verbatim wording from the response
“We are committed to continuing our work with government, regulators and industry partners to identify genuinely robust, scalable and proportionate industry-wide, long-term age-assuring”

Source location
Response from Snap
Page 4 · response
Published 14 October 2022
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
Add content controls and teen-to-parent reporting notifications to Family Centre.

Verbatim wording from the response
“In the coming months, we will add additional features to Family Centre, including new content controls for parents and the ability for teens to notify their parents when they report an account or a piece of content to us. This is in recognition of the fact that, whilst we closely moderate and”

Source location
Response from Snap
Page 6 · response
Published 14 October 2022
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
Snap considers its moderated and curated public content architecture sufficient to limit algorithmic amplification risks.

Verbatim wording from the response
“(Question 4) That algorithms were used to provide content together with adverts.”

Source location
Response from Snap
Page 6 · response
Published 14 October 2022
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
Comprehensive age verification should be developed through app stores, operating systems, mobile operators and hardware providers rather than solely by platforms.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Interaction with either one of the two app stores is a key gateway through which all users must pass before they can install apps on their phones. The two app stores are run by the two major operating system providers - Apple and Google. Introducing the two companies’ comprehensive family suites of safety and wellbeing tools - age-gates, screen time limits, downtime setting, monitoring app downloads and in-app purchases, white/black lists, etc - when signing up to the app stores would identify any underage users who somehow fell through earlier (and unavoidable) entry points. We believe this to be the most viable opportunity for a robust, comprehensive and industry-wide age verification system to be developed and located. All the more so given the existence in both stores of credit-card-based verification for parents and carers.”

Source location
Response from Snap
Page 5 · response
Published 14 October 2022
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
Snap disputes that there is no age verification, stating users provide dates of birth and under-13 registrations fail.

Verbatim wording from the response
“We are deeply committed to ensuring children under the age of 13 are not able to access Snapchat and we approach this in the following ways.”

Source location
Response from Snap
Page 4 · response
Published 14 October 2022
Open published response

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Concerns raised7

Lack of separation between adult and child platform areas

Use of algorithms to provide content together with adverts

Lack of parental, guardian or carer access to material viewed by a child

Lack of age verification at online platform sign-up

Lack of parental, guardian or carer control over material viewed by a child

Failure to control online content so that it is age specific

Failure to separately link a child's account to a parent, guardian or carer's account for monitoring

Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2

Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

Actions described in response 2

Respondent positions 3