Children under the age of 16 will be banned from using major social media platforms in the UK from Spring 2027 under government plans that represent one of the most significant attempts yet to reshape how young people interact with the online world.

What Has Been Announced?

Before his resignation, Sir Keir Starmer had confirmed that the government intends to introduce legislation before Christmas that will prevent under-16s from accessing a range of major social media services.

The ban is expected to come into force in Spring 2027 and will apply to platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, YouTube and X. Messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal will not be included.

Announcing the plans, Starmer said: “That’s why we’re going further than any country in the world by banning social media for under-16s and putting wider protections in place to give kids their childhood back.”

The government has described the move as a “line in the sand” that will create “a new normal for future generations”.

The UK Is Going Further Than A Simple Ban

The proposal extends beyond simply preventing children from creating social media accounts.

The government has also announced restrictions on high-risk online features, including livestreaming and communication with strangers. These restrictions will apply not only to social media platforms but also to a wider range of online services, including gaming sites.

Importantly, some protections will remain switched on by default for 16 and 17-year-olds. Ministers say this is intended to avoid what they describe as a “cliff-edge at 16”, where protections would otherwise disappear overnight.

The government is also examining possible restrictions on infinite scrolling and overnight social media use for under-18s, with further details expected later this year.

Meanwhile, so-called AI “romantic companion” chatbots designed to simulate intimate or sexual relationships will be restricted to adults, while similar intimate AI functions will be limited for under-18s.

Why Is The Government Doing This?

The announcement follows a major public consultation that attracted more than 116,000 responses from parents, children and experts.

According to the government’s findings, nine in ten parents supported a social media ban for under-16s, while two-thirds of young people agreed that children under 16 should not be allowed to use at least some social media platforms.

The government argues that algorithmic feeds, real-time content, cyberbullying, harmful material, addictive platform design and online exploitation are creating risks that existing safeguards have failed to address.

Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said: “Today we take a bold and significant step towards creating a safer, healthier life online for our children and future generations.”

She also argued that technology firms had failed to act voluntarily, stating: “Tech companies have had countless opportunities to keep children safe, yet they have failed to act.”

How Will The Ban Be Enforced?

One of the biggest challenges will be ensuring that under-16s cannot simply bypass the restrictions.

The government says it intends to introduce stronger age assurance requirements and has asked Ofcom to carry out a rapid review into the most effective ways of verifying whether someone is over 16.

Officials have indicated that a range of methods could be used, including facial age estimation technology, identity verification and other forms of age assurance. Many adults may not need additional checks if their accounts are already linked to verified payment methods or age-verified accounts.

The government also says it is learning from Australia’s experience, where social media restrictions have already been introduced but enforcement has proved challenging.

Questions Remain

Not everyone supports the plans. For example, Meta, Snapchat and YouTube have all expressed concerns that blanket bans could push young people towards less regulated services that may be harder to supervise.

YouTube described itself as “a vital resource for young people, educators and parents”, while Meta warned that restrictions could risk isolating teenagers from online communities and information.

Privacy advocates have also raised concerns about age verification technologies, particularly where facial analysis or identity checks may be required to access online services.

Critics also point to evidence from Australia suggesting that many children have continued accessing social media despite restrictions, highlighting the practical difficulties involved in enforcing such bans.

Part Of A Global Trend

The UK’s decision reflects a broader international movement towards tighter controls on children’s access to social media.

Australia became the first country to introduce a nationwide under-16 social media ban, while countries including France, Spain, Greece, Denmark, Canada, Indonesia, Malaysia and others are either introducing similar measures or actively considering them.

Growing concerns about online harms, mental health, addictive platform design, cyberbullying and child exploitation are prompting governments around the world to reconsider the balance between online freedom and child protection.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For businesses, the immediate impact may be limited, but the wider significance is substantial.

The proposals signal a growing willingness by governments to intervene directly in how digital platforms operate, particularly where child safety, wellbeing and online harms are concerned. Social media firms, gaming platforms, AI developers and technology providers may all face increasing regulatory scrutiny over the coming years.

The plans also highlight the growing importance of age verification, digital identity, online safety and responsible technology design. Organisations developing online services may find that demonstrating effective safeguards becomes just as important as launching new features.

More broadly, the announcement reflects a wider change in how policymakers view digital platforms. For many years, governments largely relied on technology companies to regulate themselves. The UK’s proposed ban suggests that approach is increasingly being replaced by direct intervention when policymakers believe public safety concerns outweigh the benefits of unrestricted access.

A reported attempt by the UK government to secure continued access to Anthropic’s most advanced AI models has highlighted how dependent many countries have become on frontier AI systems developed and controlled overseas.

What Happened?

The story centres on Claude Fable 5 and Claude Mythos 5, two of Anthropic’s most capable AI models.

Earlier this month, the US Commerce Department reportedly instructed Anthropic to suspend access to both systems following concerns about a technique that could be used to identify software vulnerabilities. The move followed reports that government officials had been alerted to a potential jailbreak affecting the models.

The restrictions quickly became an international issue because Anthropic’s most advanced systems are used by organisations far beyond the United States.

UK Asked For Exemption

Reports indicate that the UK government subsequently sought continued access to the models. However, no exemption was granted and the restrictions remained in place, leaving British users affected alongside other international customers.

Why Were The Models Restricted?

The restrictions stem from a disagreement about the risks posed by advanced AI systems with strong cyber security capabilities.

According to reports, researchers demonstrated a way of prompting Fable 5 to identify software vulnerabilities within computer code. Concerns were raised that such capabilities could potentially be used to support cyber attacks as well as cyber defence.

Anthropic strongly disagrees with that assessment. The company says the technique exposed only a limited number of previously known vulnerabilities and argues that similar capabilities already exist in other leading AI systems. Anthropic has also warned that applying this standard across the industry could severely restrict the deployment of future frontier AI models.

The dispute reflects a broader challenge facing policymakers. The same AI systems that can help defenders find and fix vulnerabilities can also potentially be used by attackers to identify weaknesses more quickly.

Why The UK Became Involved

The incident has drawn attention to the UK’s reliance on foreign AI providers.

Many British organisations increasingly use frontier AI models for software development, cyber security, research, data analysis, and operational tasks. Access to those capabilities is largely controlled by a small number of US companies.

Reports suggest that organisations in sectors including finance, healthcare, research, and government were affected when Anthropic’s models became unavailable.

The situation has also raised wider national security questions.

UK AI minister Kanishka Narayan reportedly highlighted the growing importance of advanced AI systems in areas such as cyber security, drones, and defence technologies, arguing that access to frontier AI is increasingly becoming a strategic issue rather than simply a commercial one.

Cyber Security Industry Pushback

The restrictions have generated significant opposition from within the cyber security community, where many experts argue that advanced AI models are becoming increasingly important defensive tools. For example, more than 80 cyber security leaders and researchers have reportedly signed an open letter calling for the measures to be reversed, including senior figures from major cyber security firms and technology companies.

Their concern is that security teams are already using frontier AI systems to identify software vulnerabilities, analyse malware, generate detection rules, and accelerate security research. From their perspective, restricting access to powerful AI models may reduce the ability of defenders to find and fix weaknesses before attackers can exploit them.

Critics also argue that determined attackers are unlikely to be deterred by the restrictions, given the growing availability of alternative frontier models, open-source systems, and overseas providers. The debate therefore centres on whether limiting access to advanced AI genuinely improves security or simply changes who is able to use the technology and for what purpose.

The Growing Case For Sovereign AI

One of the most important consequences of the dispute may be renewed interest in sovereign AI.

The term refers to a country’s ability to develop, host, control, or guarantee access to strategically important AI capabilities without relying entirely on foreign providers.

The UK has already launched a £500 million Sovereign AI Fund and other initiatives designed to strengthen domestic AI capabilities. The Anthropic restrictions are likely to be viewed by supporters of those programmes as evidence that greater technological independence may be necessary.

Similar conversations are now taking place across Europe, Canada, India, and other regions concerned about becoming dependent on a small number of foreign AI suppliers.

Why This Matters

The significance of the story extends well beyond Anthropic. For decades, most organisations assumed that software purchased from commercial suppliers would remain available unless a provider discontinued a product or suffered an outage. Advanced AI may not follow the same pattern.

The Anthropic episode demonstrates that frontier AI systems can become entangled in national security concerns, export controls, geopolitical tensions, and government interventions. Access can potentially be affected by decisions taken far beyond the control of the organisations using them.

The incident also illustrates how rapidly AI is moving from being a productivity tool to becoming a strategic technology with implications for economic competitiveness, cyber security, and national resilience.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For businesses, the immediate issue is not whether they use Anthropic specifically, but whether they understand their dependence on external AI providers.

Many organisations are integrating AI into software development, customer service, cyber security, research, and business operations. The Anthropic restrictions highlight that access to those capabilities may not always be guaranteed.

The wider lesson is that AI resilience may become as important as AI adoption. Organisations may increasingly need to consider where their AI services come from, what alternatives exist, and how dependent critical processes have become on specific providers.

The dispute also highlights a broader reality. As AI systems become more capable and strategically important, decisions about access may increasingly be influenced by government policy, national security considerations, and international politics as much as by technological innovation itself.

A brain-computer interface developed by researchers at the University of California, Davis, has enabled a man with advanced ALS to communicate with remarkable accuracy, return to full-time employment, and use a computer independently for nearly two years, marking one of the most significant real-world demonstrations of the technology to date.

How The System Works

The breakthrough centres on Casey Harrell, a man living with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a progressive neurological condition that destroys motor neurons and can eventually leave people unable to speak or move.

In 2023, surgeons implanted four microelectrode arrays into the speech motor region of Harrell’s brain. The arrays record neural activity associated with attempted speech, which is then analysed by machine-learning software developed by the UC Davis team.

The system translates those neural signals into phonemes, the basic sounds that make up words, before converting them into complete sentences. The decoded text can then be displayed on screen or spoken aloud using a synthesised version of Harrell’s voice from before ALS affected his speech.

According to the research paper published in Nature Medicine, the system achieved more than 99 per cent word accuracy during formal testing using a vocabulary of 125,000 words. Over nearly two years of real-world use, Harrell communicated more than 183,000 sentences, totalling almost two million words.

Moving Beyond The Laboratory

What makes the achievement particularly significant is that the technology was used independently at home rather than under constant supervision from researchers.

Many previous brain-computer interface studies have demonstrated impressive results in controlled laboratory settings. However, practical day-to-day use has remained a major challenge.

The UC Davis team reported that Harrell used the system for more than 3,800 hours over a 19-month period and operated it without researchers being present. After initial setup by trained care partners, he was able to communicate, browse the internet, send messages, participate in video calls, and control a computer cursor using only neural signals.

The researchers described this as one of the key barriers to real-world adoption that the project has now overcome.

In the paper, they wrote that the results demonstrate “that intracortical BCIs have the potential to support independent use in the home, marking a critical step toward practical assistive technology for people with severe motor impairment.”

Helping Someone Return To Work

The technology’s impact extends beyond technical performance metrics.

Despite being paralysed and unable to speak naturally, Harrell has returned to full-time employment as an environmental advocate while using the system. Researchers reported that he used the brain-computer interface as his primary method of communication, preferring it to previous assistive technologies.

The study states that the system enabled him to maintain “full-time employment” while independently managing professional and personal communications.

Harrell also highlighted the personal benefits of the technology. Speaking through the brain-computer interface, he said: “It is a life that is more full of dynamic action and with friends and family, with colleagues, and it is something that allows me to communicate more in my natural way of communicating than any other technology that I have experienced.”

Why AI Is Central To The Breakthrough

Although brain implants often attract the headlines, the most important innovation may actually be the software.

The hardware used in the project is based on existing microelectrode technology. The major advance comes from the AI-powered decoding system developed by the UC Davis team.

Their software platform, known as BRAND, uses machine-learning algorithms to interpret complex neural signals in real time and convert them into meaningful language. Researchers continually refined the algorithms during the study to improve accuracy, stability, and ease of use.

The research paper notes that the latest transformer-based decoder achieved a state-of-the-art word accuracy rate of 99.2 per cent while requiring little or no daily recalibration.

Important Limitations Remain

Despite the encouraging results, it should be noted here that the technology remains in the experimental stage.

The study involved only a single participant, and researchers acknowledge that it is not yet known how widely the results will apply to other patients with ALS or different neurological conditions.

The system also still relies on external computers, wired connections, and trained carers to connect the equipment each day. Widespread clinical use would require further miniaturisation, regulatory approval, and substantial reductions in cost.

The researchers themselves note that “future work will be needed to evaluate wireless or fully implantable systems, minimise setup time and expand access to users with different clinical profiles.”

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For most organisations, brain-computer interfaces may seem far removed from everyday business concerns. However, the study provides another example of how AI is increasingly moving beyond software applications and becoming integrated with healthcare, assistive technologies, and human-machine interaction.

The achievement also highlights the growing role of AI in solving complex real-world problems that extend well beyond productivity tools and chatbots. In this case, machine learning is helping restore communication, digital access, and employment opportunities for someone who would otherwise face severe limitations.

The technology remains years away from routine commercial deployment, but the results suggest that brain-computer interfaces are beginning to transition from research projects into practical assistive tools. If future studies can replicate these results at scale, they could significantly improve quality of life for people living with ALS, paralysis, and other severe neurological conditions.

An Earth observation satellite has successfully identified targets on its own while in orbit, without requiring human analysts on the ground, marking what is believed to be the first reported use of a vision-language AI model operating in space.

What Happened?

The milestone took place aboard YAM-9, a satellite operated by space infrastructure company Loft Orbital.

Traditionally, Earth observation satellites collect large volumes of imagery and sensor data, which are then transmitted to Earth for analysis by either human operators or machine-learning systems. In this case, however, the analysis happened directly on the satellite itself.

Using software developed by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and Google’s Gemma 3 vision-language model, the spacecraft was able to interpret natural-language instructions and identify relevant features within the imagery it was collecting. According to reports, researchers asked the system to locate things such as infrastructure around railway hubs and areas where human development meets the natural environment, and the satellite successfully identified them.

The demonstration is believed to be the first publicly reported example of a vision-language model operating autonomously in orbit.

How The Technology Works

The project combined several technologies that have become increasingly important in artificial intelligence.

Vision-language models differ from conventional image-recognition systems because they can understand both images and natural-language instructions. Rather than being trained to identify only specific objects, they can interpret broader requests expressed in everyday language.

On YAM-9, Google’s Gemma 3 model was integrated into a software platform called NAVI-Orbital, developed by NASA JPL. The system ran on an Nvidia Jetson Orin AGX processor carried onboard the satellite.

This allowed the satellite to analyse imagery while still in orbit rather than waiting for instructions from Earth.

Instead of downloading vast quantities of raw data and asking analysts to search through it later, the satellite could determine which information was relevant and prioritise it automatically.

Why This Matters

The development could significantly change the economics and usefulness of Earth observation.

Modern satellites generate enormous amounts of data, much of which may never be examined in detail because analysing it requires time, computing resources, and human expertise. By performing initial analysis onboard, future satellites could reduce the volume of data that needs to be transmitted and processed on the ground.

Paul Lasserre, Loft Orbital’s head of AI, described the wider opportunity by saying: “If you have a VLM, you can have logic, like ‘monitor this border for me, and let me know when something is suspicious,’ and interact back and forth with the satellites.”

That represents a change from satellites acting primarily as remote cameras towards becoming active participants in monitoring and decision-making processes.

The technology could also help reduce delays. For example, rather than waiting for imagery to be downloaded and reviewed, operators could potentially receive alerts about significant events as they occur.

Potential Applications

The possible uses extend across both commercial and public-sector activities.

Loft Orbital already highlights applications including vessel detection, asset monitoring, border security, environmental tracking, wildfire detection, vegetation monitoring, and deforestation analysis. The company’s wider vision involves deploying AI applications directly in orbit rather than relying entirely on ground-based processing.

The company states that its AI-enabled infrastructure allows decision-makers to have “their questions answered in near real-time”.

Future systems could potentially monitor shipping routes, identify unusual activity around critical infrastructure, detect environmental changes, or support emergency response efforts following natural disasters.

Loft is also developing Altair, a planned ten-satellite AI-enabled constellation designed for near real-time monitoring and deployment of space-based AI applications.

Part Of A Bigger Change

The demonstration also points towards a broader trend within the space industry. For decades, satellites have primarily been designed to collect information and transmit it elsewhere for analysis. Increasingly powerful onboard processors are now making it possible for spacecraft to perform far more sophisticated tasks independently.

According to Loft Orbital, “Traditional satellites cannot keep up” with the pace of AI development, which is why the company is investing heavily in on-orbit computing and AI infrastructure.

Researchers involved in the project also see potential applications beyond Earth observation. NASA JPL has previously discussed how similar AI assistants could eventually help astronauts working on the Moon or Mars by providing interactive support without requiring constant communication with Earth.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The project really demonstrates how AI is increasingly moving closer to where data is generated rather than relying entirely on centralised data centres and cloud platforms. Similar trends are already emerging in manufacturing, transport, cyber security, healthcare, and industrial monitoring, where AI systems are being deployed directly at the edge rather than waiting for data to be sent elsewhere.

The satellite also highlights a change in how organisations may interact with technology. For example, rather than collecting information and analysing it later, future systems are increasingly being designed to understand objectives, identify relevant information, and proactively highlight what matters.

The result is not simply faster analysis, but it also represents a move towards autonomous systems that can act as intelligent assistants, helping people make decisions from vast amounts of data that would otherwise be impossible to process efficiently. As AI capabilities continue to improve, that model is likely to become increasingly common both in space and here on Earth.

Tesco is migrating approximately 40,000 servers away from VMware while simultaneously pursuing legal action against Broadcom for more than £100 million, in a dispute that highlights growing concerns about software licensing, vendor lock-in, and the risks of relying on critical technology platforms.

What Happened?

The dispute stems from Broadcom’s acquisition of VMware, one of the world’s largest providers of server virtualisation software, by US technology giant Broadcom in late 2023.

Before the takeover, Tesco had purchased perpetual VMware licences in 2021 that included software updates and support until 2026, together with an option to extend support arrangements until 2030. According to Tesco, those agreements formed part of its long-term technology planning for critical systems across the business.

Following the acquisition, however, Broadcom changed VMware’s licensing model and moved customers towards subscription-based offerings.

Tesco alleges that it was prevented from continuing with the support arrangements it expected under its existing agreements and instead faced significantly more expensive bundled subscription packages. The retailer is now pursuing legal action in the UK High Court against Broadcom, VMware entities, and other parties connected to the dispute.

Why Tesco Is Migrating

Perhaps the most striking aspect of the story is that Tesco is not waiting for the court case to conclude.

For example, the retailer has already begun a major programme to replace VMware across its estate and intends to complete the migration by the end of 2027. According to court filings, Tesco began migration efforts in 2025 after concluding that it could no longer depend on the outcome of the legal dispute.

It is worth noting here the sheer scale of this project. For example, migrating 40,000 servers is a complex undertaking that involves replacing core virtualisation infrastructure, retraining staff, testing alternative platforms, maintaining business continuity, and ensuring compatibility with a wide range of existing applications and services.

Tesco’s legal filings seem to suggest the company believes the operational disruption and migration costs are preferable to remaining dependent on its current VMware arrangements.

The Pricing Dispute

At the centre of the disagreement is the question of cost. According to Tesco’s legal filings, Broadcom offered a one-year VMware Cloud Foundation subscription that was substantially more expensive than the pricing Tesco expected under its previous renewal arrangements. The retailer claims some proposals represented increases of approximately 175 per cent compared with earlier pricing structures.

The dispute also extends beyond VMware. Tesco has claimed that software and support arrangements connected to CA Technologies mainframe products, which are also owned by Broadcom, became significantly more expensive following the acquisition.

In court filings, Tesco alleges that it has been forced to incur substantial costs procuring alternative products, hiring external specialists, and diverting internal resources towards accelerated migration projects.

A Wider VMware Backlash

The Tesco dispute has attracted quite a bit of attention because of its size, but it seems the issues at the heart of the case are affecting many VMware customers.

For example, since Broadcom completed the VMware acquisition, many organisations have reported significant changes to licensing, packaging, and purchasing arrangements. The company’s strategy has focused on simplifying VMware’s product portfolio and encouraging customers to adopt broader subscription bundles centred on VMware Cloud Foundation.

Supporters argue that this approach provides a more integrated platform and creates clearer product offerings. Critics, however, have expressed concerns about rising costs and reduced flexibility, particularly for organisations that previously relied on perpetual licences.

The situation has created opportunities for rival vendors. Companies including Nutanix, Microsoft, HPE, and other virtualisation providers have increasingly positioned themselves as alternatives for organisations seeking to reduce dependence on VMware.

The Challenge Of Depending On One Technology Platform

The Tesco dispute highlights a broader challenge facing organisations that depend heavily on a single technology platform.

Many businesses view software licences as long-term assets and build operational plans around assumptions about future support, pricing, and compatibility. Acquisitions can disrupt those assumptions, particularly when new owners adopt different commercial strategies.

The case also demonstrates how difficult it can be to move away from deeply embedded technology. Tesco’s migration involves tens of thousands of servers, third-party support arrangements, infrastructure redesign, application testing, and significant operational risk. Even for one of Britain’s largest retailers, replacing a critical technology platform is neither quick nor inexpensive.

Also, the fact that Tesco has decided to proceed with the migration while litigation continues appears to show the extent to which the relationship has broken down.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For businesses, the most important lesson is not whether Broadcom or Tesco ultimately prevails in court. The story really highlights the importance of understanding technology dependencies and having contingency plans for critical platforms. Software vendors can change ownership, licensing models, support arrangements, and commercial priorities far more quickly than organisations can replace core infrastructure.

It also demonstrates the value of regularly reviewing exit strategies. Many businesses carefully assess the benefits of adopting a platform but spend less time considering what would be involved if they needed to leave it.

Most organisations will never face a migration on the scale of Tesco’s 40,000-server project. However, the underlying challenge is familiar to businesses of all sizes. The more critical a technology becomes to daily operations, the more important it is to understand the risks associated with relying on a single supplier.

The Tesco case may ultimately become one of the most closely watched technology disputes of recent years because it raises a question that, when you buy software, how much control do you really retain if the company behind it changes?

New research shows that 43 per cent of MSPs and their customers experienced a cyber incident linked to a supplier or third-party vendor during the last year.

CyberSmart’s 2026 MSP Survey found that MSPs are increasingly being targeted because their access to customer systems can provide a route into multiple organisations. More than half of supply chain incidents involved the MSP as well as the customer.

The survey also found that only 45 per cent of MSPs continuously monitor third-party risk. CyberSmart CEO Jamie Akhtar warned that “a single weak link can have far-reaching consequences for customers, suppliers and partners”.

The findings come as MSPs prepare for the UK’s Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, which will increase scrutiny of supply chain security.

Businesses can reduce their exposure by reviewing supplier security, limiting third-party access, and monitoring supply chain risks on an ongoing basis.