Hello and welcome back to the Pinsent Masons Podcast, where we keep you up to date with the most important developments in the world's business law every second Tuesday. My name is Matthew Magee, and I'm a journalist here at Pinsent Masons. And this week, as countries around the world mull social media bans for children, we ask whether we need to go back to first principles when thinking about keeping children safe online. But first, here's some business law news from around the world.

UK non surgical cosmetic regulation must be enforced, says expert.
Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre stats reveal record breaking 2025 and
Research shows impact of UK’s new zero hour protections.

As pressure grows on the UK to regulate non surgical cosmetic treatments, any new rules must be properly enforced and resourced, an expert has said. The UK government faces mounting pressure to fulfil its pledge to regulate non surgical cosmetic procedures, including Brazilian butt lifts, Botox and dermal fillers. These have left people maimed, injured and requiring hospital treatment. Last August, the UK government proposed a new regulatory framework for non surgical cosmetic procedures. Medical law expert Louise Fullwood said that “enforcement would be essential to keep rogue actors at bay,” she said. “For an effective regime, enforcement needs to be well considered and properly resourced so that bad actors in the area understand that they will face serious consequences for compliance failures and legitimate businesses are not penalised for ensuring safety.”

The number of new cases being received by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre rose in 2025 compared to the previous year, and the value of disputes also increased substantially. The centre received 582 new cases compared to 503 the previous year. The total amount in dispute was 16.2 billion US dollars, compared to 13.6 billion dollars in 2024. The average amount in dispute was 53.7 million dollars. Arbitration expert Mohammed Talib said “around 85% of all arbitrations heard by the centre were international and involved at least one non Hong Kong SAR based party, reaffirming the seat's importance globally.” He said “the statistics showed that traditional big users of the service, such as the US, Singapore, the UK and the Cayman Islands, were still big users, but new and more recent adopters such as Brazil and Russia appeared there too.”

The number of people on zero hour contracts in the UK has reached record levels, according to new research. The findings underscore the scale of the challenge that employers in Britain will face when new rights for those on zero and low hour contracts take effect in 2027, an employment law expert has said. Research by the Work Foundation at Lancaster University revealed that the number of people on zero hour contracts in the UK has reached a record 1.23 million, 91,000 up in the past year. In 2027, the Employment Rights Act will introduce new rights for zero and low hour workers, including rights to reasonable notice of shifts, payments for shifts cancelled, moved or curtailed at short notice and a right to guaranteed minimum hours. These rights will also extend to agency workers. Employment law expert Joe McMorrow said “employers should be taking proactive steps now to prepare for implementation. This includes carrying out audits of current working patterns, thinking strategically about future workforce models and reviewing arrangements with agencies. Employers should also actively manage hours worked ahead of this implementation date to reduce the risk of inadvertently creating large pools of workers who qualify for guaranteed hours once the new duties take effect.”

Governments across the world are under enormous pressure to act on children's online safety. Generations who grew up with social media are telling their stories of the impact it had, and new tools such as X’s Grok are being used to fabricate images of child sexual abuse and exploitation. So governments are stirring to action. Under sixteens are now banned from social media in Australia, and Spain is planning a similar ban. France, Denmark and Austria have said they're considering that measure too. But is this the right approach? And how would we know? Well, as London based technology law expert Lauro Fava explains, we don't need to start from scratch when thinking about this. There are some fundamental principles of child protection that are long established, have already influenced existing online regulation, and could be a useful guide as the political heat has turned up on the harm online life causes for children. Perhaps, he says, we need to base future policy more firmly in those principles. He's talking about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, so he told me a bit about what that is.

Lauro Fava: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is a very old convention. It dates back to 1989, and I think it's one of the most, if not the most widely ratified conventions from the UN. It sets out a long list of rights which children have and that includes, for example, right to privacy, right to safety, right to an education, freedom of expression which includes imparting as well as receiving information and ideas, right to play and leisure. It really is quite a long list of rights, including as well, it's worth mentioning, a right to participate in decisions that affect them.

Matthew Magee: He says that one of the principles the convention sets out is particularly important and has already been influential.

Lauro: The convention also establishes the best interests of the child requirement, which is a principle which requires states to ensure that in all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child should be the primary consideration. That isn't to say the only consideration, but effectively what it is saying is that the best interests of the child should be given more weight than other considerations like economic or commercial considerations.

Matthew: UN conventions don't bind companies or people directly, but they do bind the governments that sign up to them. And we've already heard from Lauro that more governments have signed up to this one than to most UN conventions. So this is how the principle has already influenced online regulation for young people.

Lauro: The convention requires member state parties to also flow down this best interests requirement, so implementing legislation and other administrative measures to ensure that the best interests of the child are respected by private organisations as well. States are generally expected to consider the best interests of the child whenever they're introducing a new law or measure which might have an impact on children. The best interests of the child principle would have been considered when, for example, the EU introduced requirements that certain content shouldn't be shown to children. So there would have been specific requirements which would be based on considerations of the best interests of the child.

In recent years, businesses are being more involved in doing that assessment themselves. I think a prime example is the UK ICO’s Children's Code, which is a code which applies to any organisation which provides a digital service, so a website or app which is likely to be accessed by children. And that code says that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration when designing these digital services. This specific requirement in the Children's Code has now actually been put on a statutory footing. So with the introduction of the Data Use and Access Act last year, there are similar requirements abroad as well. So if we look at Ireland, for example, the DPC, the Data Protection Commission, issued guidelines called the Fundamentals for Protecting Children Online and that, similar to the UK ICO’s Children's Code, uses this best interest principle and basically says, similar to the UK code, that the best interest should be the primary consideration. There's also the EU Digital Services Act, which requires providers of online platforms accessible to minors to put in place measures to ensure a high level of privacy, safety and security of minors. That doesn't explicitly call out the best interests of the child, but it is effectively requiring businesses to carry out an assessment of what the best interests of the child are. The Commission has recently issued guidelines as well on how that requirement should be interpreted and applied, and those guidelines then do specifically call out the best interests of the child principle.

Matthew: Lauro says that as a central principle, the best interests of the child is vital, but it isn't necessarily easy. It may conflate, for example, with what parents think is best or what government thinks is best, and it certainly changes depending on the age of the young person.

Lauro: I think it's very important to bear in mind that the best interests of the child is going to be different for children in different age groups. So we're talking about a 10 year old, for example, their right to safety and privacy might take a bit more of a priority than their rights to impart and receive information online. Or if we take the example of a 10 year old and an app which allows a parent to track where the 10 year old is, that's good for their safety and slightly undermines their right to privacy. However, when you're thinking about someone who is that young, then probably enabling parents to track where they are is probably the right balance for them. The situation might be very different when you're talking about a 16 year old. At that age, a 16 year old will show a much greater level of maturity. They'll have a much stronger expectation of privacy and other interests like receiving information, education, engaging in social activities and engaging in society generally is much more important at that age. And so the balance is going to be different. It's difficult for parents, guardians and even the state to make a determination on what the best interests of the child is, which is one reason why the UNCRC requires that children are heard when measures are being considered that will impact them.

Matthew: So if we look at a possible proliferation of bans around the world, is this action compatible with the best interests principle from the UN Convention? Lauro thinks it isn't.

Lauro: I don't think that bans align with the best interests of the child. They are extremely precautionary measures. So you have governments saying there are a number of risks involved in using social media, so let's just eliminate those risks by banning social media for under sixteens completely. But that also means eliminating benefits. Older children would expect and even need to engage with their friends, access certain support services which may be available on social media, receive ideas so that they can start to form their own views, and the ban takes all of that away from them. So a ban is prioritising safety and privacy and sacrificing everything else. There is a difference between the best interests of a 10 year old and the best interests of a 15 and 16 year old, and the ban is treating children in all of those age groups in the same way. There's a risk of children being pushed onto less scrupulous services as well, who might not be complying with the ban or using VPNs to access platforms which take no measures at all to protect children's interests. There's also this issue around loss of access to vital support networks, especially when certain children might not have the benefit of supportive parents around them all the time or access to counselling at school, etc. And social media can give them some of that, it plugs the gap sometimes. And so by simply banning social media, you're denying them a number of benefits and I think we need to listen more and not hastily just rush to a ban. I think it's easy to say there are some risks here, let's take them away by imposing a ban, but it might end up causing more harm than good.

Well, thanks again for listening, joining us and spending your time with us. We greatly appreciate it. Please do tell anyone that you think might be interested in this program or in the whole series. Remember, you can check up on the international business law news anytime of any day from our dedicated reporting team at pinsentmasons.com or you can get a digest tailored just for what you're interested in at pinsentmasons.com/newsletter. But for now, until next time, thanks and goodbye.

Pinsent Masons Podcast was produced and presented by Matthew Magee for international law firm Pinsent Masons.