PFD report

Oliver Luke Gorman · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 4 Nov 2025•Manchester South

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
5

Raised in this report

Recipients
4

Named on the report

Responses found
4

Of 4 recipients

Stated actions
9

Described in responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised5

  1. Inadequate visibility and wording of aerosol inhalation warnings
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate product safety warnings about serious hazards
  2. Failure of social media platforms to control dangerous challenge content
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable monitoring and moderation of harmful social-media content
  3. Lack of age restrictions on aerosol products and other products containing butane/propane propellant
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.6

  1. Action

    Work with Ofcom to track the impact of the Online Safety Act and respond to emerging online risks.

    Stated by Department for Science, Innovation and TechnologyStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 5 November 2025.
  2. Action

    Write to social media companies to raise awareness of aerosol misuse and encourage removal of dangerous content.

    Stated by British Aerosol Manufacturers' AssociationStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 November 2025.
  3. Action

    Promote existing and updated caution labels and encourage aerosol marketers to adopt them across products placed on the UK market.

    Stated by British Aerosol Manufacturers' AssociationStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 5 November 2025.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.5

  1. Position

    Ofcom is responsible for enforcing platforms’ Online Safety Act duties, including where services fail to comply with information notices.

    Stated by Department for Science, Innovation and TechnologyRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Inadequate visibility and wording of aerosol inhalation warnings

Wider context from the report

“2. Adequacy of Warning The warnings on the cans of ████████ of the danger/risk of inhaling the aerosol spray were, in my opinion, inadequate in terms of visibility and wording. The warning was set in an area outline of about 12mm x 12mm, in black or white writing depending on the background colour of the can. It was lost amongst all the other information and writing on the can. At least the ‘inflammable content’ warning was outlined in red. The warning stated “SOLVENT ABUSE CAN KILL INSTANTLY”. Many people (both adults and children) may not equate inhalation of aerosol spray with solvent abuse. Thus, the warning does not appear to properly describe the risks of using/misusing using the product. That risk being inhalation of this aerosol spray can cause instant death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate product safety warnings about serious hazards.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure of social media platforms to control dangerous challenge content

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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable monitoring and moderation of harmful social-media content.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of age restrictions on aerosol products and other products containing butane/propane propellant

Wider context from the report

“1. No Age Restriction The age restriction on the purchase of butane for refilling cigarette lighters (and the like) is 18 years of age. I understand the legislation is primarily aimed at preventing the misuse of butane. The age restriction on the purchase of aerosol paints is 16 years of age. I understand that the legislation is aimed at reducing incidents of graffiti and preventing the misuse of butane/propane - ████████ as above. There is no age restriction on the purchase of aerosol ████████ or other products containing butane/propane as the propellant, ████████ yet their misuse is as equally dangerous. An age restriction on such products would also likely heighten parental awareness of the dangers of such products. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to control toxic social media algorithms

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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Social media features failing to control amplification of harmful content.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to restrict children’s access to hazardous online content.

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

Work with Ofcom to track the impact of the Online Safety Act and respond to emerging online risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The government’s mission is clear: children must grow up safe, protected, and free from online harms. I will work relentlessly across government, alongside other Secretaries of State, to prevent tragedies like this from ever happening again. The Online Safety Act is a critical tool in achieving that goal. The protections outlined above are now fully in force, and we are already seeing real tangible improvements in how children experience the online world. But let me be absolutely clear—this is only the beginning. These protections are a foundation from which we will build on if required. My department is working closely with Ofcom to track the impact of the Act, and their flexible approach means we can respond quickly to new and emerging risks. If further action is needed, I will not hesitate to strengthen child safety measures.”

Source location

Response from Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Page 3 · response
Published 5 November 2025

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

Write to social media companies to raise awareness of aerosol misuse and encourage removal of dangerous content.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We note the coroner's reference to TikTok challenges. BAMA will write to social media companies to raise awareness of this problem and to encourage them to remove dangerous content. BAMA would also like to offer any assistance it can to UK regulators to help them combat the posting of this kind of material.”

Source location

Response from British Aerosol Manufacturers Association
Page 2 · response
Published 5 November 2025

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

Promote existing and updated caution labels and encourage aerosol marketers to adopt them across products placed on the UK market.

Verbatim wording from the response

“BAMA believes that providing information and education on ████████ safety is essential and is committed to ensuring that aerosol marketers provide prominent caution marks on pack, which we believe would be more effective than imposing age restrictions on the sale of ████████. Since the late 1990s, BAMA has asked those placing aerosols on the UK market to add a voluntary caution mark alongside the product information, in addition to the legally required text, that reads “Solvent Abuse Can Kill Instantly” (SACKI).”

Source location

Response from British Aerosol Manufacturers Association
Page 1 · response
Published 5 November 2025

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

Developed and updated guidance for a prominent inhalation caution mark, including revised wording, placement and visibility specifications.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Earlier this year, following work with Re-Solv, academia, and consumers on the changing use of language, BAMA updated its advice. It proposed an alternative mark that reads: “Intentional misuse can kill instantly. Do not deliberately inhale” along with suggested wording for an additional cautionary statement. There is also a recommendation regarding where this mark should be placed to make it more prominent to users. More details can be found below or on the BAMA website.”

Source location

Response from British Aerosol Manufacturers Association
Page 2 · response
Published 5 November 2025

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

Monitor voluntary uptake of the updated warning and communicate expectations for industry adoption.

Verbatim wording from the response

“OPSS, with the BAMA’s support, will monitor the progress on the voluntary uptake of the new labelling and we will make clear that we expect industry to be following this updated best practice for products where it is most relevant.”

Source location

Response from Product Safety & Standards
Page 3 · response
Published 5 November 2025

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

Encourage aerosol manufacturers to adopt the updated inhalation-risk warning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I understand that one of the UK market leaders in this industry will implement the new messaging from January 2026, meaning a significant proportion of aerosol products in the UK will soon carry the new label. While this will be voluntary, we expect other businesses to follow suit, and OPSS will be encouraging all aerosol manufacturers to take up the new warning. I understand the BAMA will also encourage their membership to make the change as soon as possible.”

Source location

Response from Product Safety & Standards
Page 3 · response
Published 5 November 2025

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

Ofcom is responsible for enforcing platforms’ Online Safety Act duties, including where services fail to comply with information notices.

Verbatim wording from the response

“If a platform fails to respond to a Notice, Ofcom can take tough enforcement action - including fines of up to 10% of the companies' qualifying worldwide revenue or £18 million, whichever is greater. I expect Ofcom to use all its enforcement powers to hold platforms accountable where they are failing to meet their duties under the OSA, including in these circumstances.”

Source location

Response from Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Page 3 · response
Published 5 November 2025

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

Improved on-pack labelling and point-of-use information are considered sufficient, making retail age restrictions on aerosol sales unnecessary.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Like other household products, aerosols are safe when used according to the manufacturer's instructions. Products are tested to ensure they comply with all relevant regulations and are labelled, as a minimum, in accordance with those regulations. We believe that the labelling of products, as detailed above, is the best way to raise awareness of the potential dangers of misusing an aerosol, including for parents and those caring for young people.”

Source location

Response from British Aerosol Manufacturers Association
Page 2 · response
Published 5 November 2025

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

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

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

Existing regulations and industry measures are not shown to be less effective than introducing an age limit for aerosol deodorant purchases.

Verbatim wording from the response

“While I share your concern at the circumstances of Oliver’s tragic death, it is not clear the available evidence proves that placing an age limit on the purchase of aerosol deodorants would be more effective than the measures currently in place under the existing regulations, or the additional steps the industry is taking on warnings, which I have set out below.”

Source location

Response from Product Safety & Standards
Page 2 · response
Published 5 November 2025

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

Other departments are best placed to address harmful content accessible across social media platforms.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to your matters of concern regarding harmful content accessible across social media platforms, I know you have sent your report to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, which are best placed to respond to these matters.”

Source location

Response from Product Safety & Standards
Page 3 · response
Published 5 November 2025

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. 1

    Review the report’s online-safety issues to inform government consideration of stronger protections for children.

    Stated by Department for Science, Innovation and TechnologyStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 5 November 2025.
  2. 2

    Work with retailers to ensure awareness of the potential for aerosol misuse.

    Stated by British Aerosol Manufacturers' AssociationStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 5 November 2025.
  3. 3

    Direct officials to communicate the new labelling initiative to charities and other relevant groups.

    Stated by Department for Business, Innovation, Science and TradeStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 November 2025.

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

Review the report’s online-safety issues to inform government consideration of stronger protections for children.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to your Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths dated 4 November 2025, regarding the devastating death of Oliver Gorman. Since taking up my role as Secretary of State for the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology, I have been actively reviewing the issues you have raised in your report, and I am grateful to you for bringing them to my attention.”

Source location

Response from Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Page 1 · response
Published 5 November 2025

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

Work with retailers to ensure awareness of the potential for aerosol misuse.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As aerosol dispensers are ubiquitous household products used for a wide variety of applications, from air fresheners and hairsprays to deodorants and insecticides, we believe that by improving on-pack labelling and highlighting the potential risks of misuse, age restrictions are unnecessary in the retail environment. We believe providing information and education at the point of use is better than at the point of sale. However, BAMA has and will continue to work with retailers to ensure they are fully aware of the potential for aerosols to be misused.”

Source location

Response from British Aerosol Manufacturers Association
Page 2 · response
Published 5 November 2025

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

Direct officials to communicate the new labelling initiative to charities and other relevant groups.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Consumer awareness campaigns help individuals to understand and engage with product safety issues, enabling them to make informed purchasing decisions to keep themselves, friends, and family safe from harm. There is a history of work to reduce solvent abuse harm built on collaboration between industry and charities like Re-Solv, and OPSS encourages industry-led initiatives to address risks and compliance issues. We also work closely with charities including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the Child Accident Prevention Trust to share information and messages about accident prevention and product-related harms to reach vulnerable groups, and the general public. I have asked my officials to make sure that the new industry labelling initiative is communicated to these groups and others, to ensure awareness is raised as widely as possible.”

Source location

Response from Product Safety & Standards
Page 3 · response
Published 5 November 2025

Open published response
Back to top

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

Official responses located
4/4

Data last updated 7 September 2026